vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It certainly is possible for a run on the bank to drive it into insolvency.  And yes, if the bank makes some bad loans, it can magnify the problem. Generally, this does not happen, though.  Remember that banks usually have lots of customers, and people are depositing money and making mortgage payments every day, so there is usually enough on-hand to cover average banking withdrawl activity, regardless of any bad loans they have outstanding. Banks have lots of historical data to know what the average withdrawl demands are for a given day.  They also have risk models to predict the likelihood of their loans going into default.  A bank will generally use this information to strike a healthy balance between profit-making activity (e.g. issuing loans), and satisfying its account holders. In the event of a major withdrawl demand, there are some protections in place to guard against insolvency. There are regulations that specify a Reserve Requirement.  The bank must keep a certain amount of money on hand, so they can't take huge risks by loaning out too much money all at once.  Regulators can tweak this requirement over time to reflect the current economic situation. If a bank does run into trouble, it can take out a short-term loan.  Either from another bank, or from the central bank (e.g. the US Federal Reserve).  Banks don't want to pay interest on loans any more than you do, so if they are regularly borrowing money, they will adjust thier cash reserves accordingly. If all else fails and the bank can't meet its obligations (e.g. the Fed loan fell through), the bank has an insurance policy to make sure the account holders get paid.  In the US, this is what the FDIC is for.  Worst case, the bank goes under, but your money is safe. These protections have worked pretty well for many decades.  However, during the recent financial crisis, all three of these protections were under heavy strain.  So, one of the things banking regulators did was to put the major banks through stress tests to make sure they could handle several bad financial events without collapsing.  These tests showed that some banks didn't have enough money in reserve.  (Not long after, banks started to increase fees and credit card rates to raise this additional capital.) Keep in mind that if banks were unable to use the deposited money (loan it out, invest it, etc), the current financial landscape would change considerably.
"I mean ""predestination"" in the context that some people ""have it"" to be entrepreneurs and some people don't.  The requirements are for entrepreneurship are intangible - if we knew what they were then we'd be able to follow a checklist when starting a business, no business would ever fail and we'd all be multimillionaires.  IMO some people have a ""natural aptitude"" for entrepreneurship - I don't know whether that's born or part of upbringing.  But you can often see someone talking about their great idea or their plans for a fledging business and you think ""you don't have a chance, mate"" or ""that's just ridiculous - who'd pay for that?"" (or maybe just ""you've misjudged the market""). These people don't have that natural aptitude, as they prove when they fail.  If you're a budding entrepreneur your parents, other members of your family and your friends are *not* qualified to assess your abilities - only other entrepreneurs are. Family and friends just have the wrong biases - if your family tell you that you'll never succeed then you can only prove them wrong by succeeding; if your friends tell you you have a great idea then fear that they may just be saying that to keep the peace and to avoid conflict. Chances are that neither of these two groups have entrepreneurship experience - the same applies to many people here on Reddit ascribing success to luck.  If you approach an entrepreneur and tell them about your great idea then they'll be too polite to say ""you're an idiot"", so you have to ask them for their opinion, for mentoring (and then you'll probably have to read between the lines, because people are still too polite).  What I'm not seeing is people with nous and who also work hard - I'm not seeing them failing. Not dramatically. The people I see failing there has always been a clue beforehand, I thought ""why the heck are you doing it that way, mate?"""
&gt;  The vast majority of companies in the US are small businesses  This is a fairly useless measure.  Example:  Imagine if there was one company that hired 1 billion people.  And 99 companies that hired 1 person each.  You can now say that 99% of companies are small businesses.  Which is true, but 99.9999999% of people don't work for a small business, they work for a large business.  The small businesses are inconsequential.
Because what is going on now isn't harming the rest of them? It is certainly harming an unprecented number of individuals around the world.  Institutions choose which markets they operate in, and make decisions on how much risk they will be exposed to in these markets. If an institution makes poor decisions, they should wear the consequences, as it would be for any other individual/business in other situation.   'Too big to fail' is a cop-out.
Many studies show that the wealthiest households are self employed and small business owners. But there is significant risk associated, and so the wealth cannot really be enjoyed.
"I think there's a measure of confirmation bias here. If you talk to somebody that started a successful business and got a million out of it, he'd say ""it's easy, just do this and that, like I did"". If you consider this as isolated incident, you would ignore thousands of others that did exactly the same and still struggle to break even, or are earning much less, or just went broke and moved on long time ago. You will almost never hear about these as books titled ""How I tried to start a business and failed"" sell much worse than success stories. So I do not think there's a guaranteed easy way - otherwise we'd have much more millionaires than we do now :) However, it does not mean any of those ways is not worth trying - whatever failure rate there is, it's less than 100% failure rate of not trying anything.  You have to choose what fits your abilities and personality best - frugality, risk, inventiveness? Then hope you get as lucky as those ""it's easy"" people are, I guess."
Why do we reward failure so greatly? I understand the parachutes may be needed in execs you bring in to save a failing company that has little hope, but a profitable business should not be giving out parachutes. If you take over a company and run it into the ground that's your fault. you don't deserve a reward.
"Congrats you pulled some irrelevant statistics. No where in your response does it verify your claim that the majority of small businesses aren't turning a profit. And many small businesses do have a multiple stakeholders. Since we are on the subject, do you know how large a company can be and still be classified as a small business? [It is 500, 1,000, or 1,500 employees depending on the industry.] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecooper/2012/09/20/the-government-definition-of-small-business-is-b-s/#58848cee360a) Five-hundred employees is not exactly small. Oh by the way, I've worked for multiple small businesses under 100 employees and they've had owners, stakeholders, investors, a board of directors, etc. on top of all of the employees. Not every small business is some mom and pop company of 5-15 employees. &gt;Then put your money where your mouth is and get out there and create some jobs. Hahaha. This has nothing to do with the discussion but whatever dude. If we were both to start our own companies, I'd actually value my workers and you would just complain about labor costs of the people that are needed to run your business. Here is the thing, I don't consider creating minimum wage jobs as true job creation, [because the tax payer is still footing the bill if the company isn't paying a live-able wage.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/when-work-isnt-enough-to-keep-you-off-welfare-and-food-stamps/) The majority of people on welfare are working families (see same link), so what good is job creation of minimum wage positions if the people that work them still have to rely on the government? Think about this, if we were to remove the minimum wage and I could pay someone $1 and hour, I could ""create jobs."" But we all know that is asinine because no one could live on that.
"&gt; There may not be anything shameful about doing that, but that scenario is, indeed, a business **failure**. People do not shutter a profitable (successful) business and then go to work for someone else. Not necessarily. It may very well be a ""planned exit"" -- not all businesses will (nor should they be expected to or *planned* to) endure into perpetuity... just because the corporate charter sets no specific limit to the duration of the corporate entity does not mean that it is (and certainly not that it needs to be) ""immortal"". And a business that may be quite profitable to run, even if it's final pre-closing year is less so... is not necessarily a ""failure"": in fact closing an operation down *while it is (still) slightly profitable*, and BEFORE it begins losing money (and/or selling it's assets off while they still have substantial investment value), may in fact be the **wisest** move (especially financially speaking); which counts as anything BUT a ""failure"". Plus there are several industries where a ""temporary"" existence of a firm is heartily recognized as a positive thing: take films as an example, a new ""company"" (with a pre-planned, limited lifespan) will often be formed to craft and produce the film, and cease to exist once that task has been completed. And I think the hand-wringing about ""restaurants"" is especially gratuitous... if ever there was/is a business niche that was subject to fad &amp; fashion, and the ephemeral even transitory nature of people's ""tastes"", it would be the ""boutique"" segment of the restaurant industry; even the ones (or chains) that do manage to survive, often do so by dramatically changing their menus, brand &amp; character... so that a decade later they barely resemble their former selves. Sure there are also other segments of the industry that are generally ""stable"" -- but many of them tend to be slow-or-no growth as well.
My point of view is that monopolies happen because politics (whether that's politicians, trade boards, or oversight committies) allows them to occur. It's a failure of politicians in allowing it to happen, not a failure in business (as they're just pursuing their profits). When business started to interfere in politics to gain market advantages, that's when monopolies started to form. Competitive marketplaces are self-sustaining unless you create the conditions for monopolies to form.  Once you legalize what price you sell a good at you're going down a slippery slope of communism. It's a free market and companies should be able to freely sell a good at whatever price they want. If other companies can't compete in the market at that price then they aren't as efficient as the other company and it would hurt the economy in the long run to have them operating at higher costs than similar companies who can do it better.  I didn't say that the **only** exit for a startup is acquisition but I digress... The reality is that the tech market is dominated by large businesses who meddle in politics to maintain their position ([such as Google and Apple colluding in hiring practices](http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/). This is bad for everyone and especially for startups and needs to be redesigned so that startups and big companies alike can competitively challenge each other in the tech sectors.  I think we're arguing for roughly the same thing but it seems that it's a different between equality vs equity (I might be wrong however).
"Yes and No.  Almost everybody wants to own their own business. And they would gladly piss away an investor's money trying to make it happen. It's not just FUNDS that are required. I'm sure we both know some people that should not start a business of their own, no matter how it's financed.  One of the big barriers to starting a business is regulation. We all want products that are safe to use and produced responsibly, but if the regulations are such that only a handful of the largest companies are capable of compliance, then those companies can be assured they will never have any credible competition. Regulation is a very careful balancing act.  But your question wasn't ""What stops new businesses new businesses from forming?"" You asked what creates more business owners.  A lot of that is actually cultural. To be a business owner you have to have a lot of specific personality traits that most people don't have. You have to be motivated to work hard, passionate about what you want to do, organized enough to approach it consistently, analytical enough to create a solid business plan that makes sense, and rational enough to know when to quit if it's not working. Finally (and this is a big one) you have to be able to **sell** that passion to investors, prospective customers and your first employees. The best widget in the world won't sell if it's being marketed by someone who doesn't know how to market things.  What we need to do is find a way to provide consulting and resources to people who are developing those skills."
It's not the concept of patents that is a failure.  It's the application of them.  The Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress may grant exclusive production rights to authors and inventors **for a limited time**... in order to **promote science and art**.  It was supposed to protect people who put a large investment of time and resources into developing something.  It wasn't the *idea* that was supposed to be protected – it was the *investment* in developing the idea.  That is not how intellectual property is used today.  Companies have instructed politicians to change the laws so that they can use intellectual property rights to maximize profits and monopolize industries.  There was never any problem with the concept of patents.  The problem lies with government.  As long as businesses are allowed to legally bribe politicians, the laws will be altered to favor those businesses.
Why does it seem so many companies lose so much money before going out of business?  If the reason for a company being there is gone, why not just wind it down?  If I were a shareholder, I'd want management to make as much money as they can out of their declining business and return that money to shareholders so they can invest in new companies that are digital-native.
Doesn't matter what the product is, whether it's a tangible good or a service, a business is still a business and must be run as thus. If you don't run a hospital properly, as a business that provides a service, then that hospital is soon to be threatened with closure or state take-over.
But the problem I have with that is when times change, business models should too. Companies can't cling to past plans when the market changes and expect to keep making money. Successful companies constantly adapt and change. Corporations shouldn't be suing their customers when their products are failing. They should be figuring out what has changed about the market and adapting their products to entice customers to buy again.
Bank have their own Capital, Deposits from Depositors and lend money to Borrowers.   In a liquidity problem, it is typically that either the Borrowers are taking time to repay [they are not yet defaulters] or there is more pressure on withdrawals from Depositors or there is a short term of mismatch between deposits and loans ... in all these valid scenarios FED does lend out the banks to met these short terms obligations.   Banks fail when the losses are actually booked in comparison to the overall Capital or loss would materialize ... for example the Mortgage crisis in US meant that quite a few Banks the actual loss had materialized or would have any ways materialized. In such situations the short term leading does not help and they would burn it out anyways as the borrowers are not paying back any time soon ...
Why not personal responsibility? Get paid *then* provide the service. It's what small business owners do every day without the help of government or the protection of a large corporation. Individuals comply with safety regulations to protect themselves. If you need a corporation to do it for you, expect to make less. If you can do it yourself, expect to make more as an entrepreneur.
There's lots more entrepreneurship in the Philippines it's just under the radar. Big business is controlled by a handful of oligarchs. #1 problem in the Philippines would be corruption in government, IMO, followed by their bad weather/geological situation, and then terrorism. These are all huge roadblocks to overcoming poverty on their own. That difficulty to officially start a business does make things harder, and unfortunately the smarter folks who live there often find a way to put their skills to use abroad.
But what creates more business owners?  They don't pop up out of the ground, and there are always lots of people that want to make their own business.   Businesses need capital, they need startup funds.  Angel investors, VCs and banks provide the capital.
"Ahh, two things:  * You're an SME, therefore you are much more a small team than a big business - once things get over about 20-30 people it goes through a phase transition.  * ""I run a business that employs"" - and you are on the other side of the fence from the workers and have a different, more rosy tinted perspective on the whole employment thing. They almost certainly think its more 'us and them' than you do.  In the end, 'employment' rather than 'partnership' is always more about the money first than it is about the camaraderie."
[Banks fail all the time.](https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html) [6 bank failures in 2017 through May.](https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/)  Bitcoin has it's place in the monetary ecosystem, but replacing the present machinery for economy-wide resource allocation is not one of them. [See my comments here why bitcoin's monetary policy is unstable.](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/74gjbo/bitcoin_monetary_policy/dny885d/) Please read the last comment in the chain.   Disclaimer: I support bitcoin for reasons other than its monetary policy.
The best company will be highly reliable. It will be very flexible in solving your problems. Whenever your company has any malfunction, you will need urgent repairs or maintenance. Consider the time taken by the company to attend to your needs. A firm suitable for industrial maintenance NJ entrepreneurs needs will respond faster.
The banks see small apartments as a higher risk because usually very small apartments are harder to sell, especially during a falling market when there is an oversupply of these apartments. The price of small apartments will also fall a lot quicker in a falling market. Regarding yield vs capital growth - the emphasis here is manly on high yielding properties in small country towns with small populations. How many properties can you buy with cash? Properties with good growth will enable you to build equity quicker and enable you to build a larger portfolio. In my opinion you need a combination of good yield and reasonable growth, because without yield you cannot replace your earned income with passive income, but without growth you can't expand your portfolio. So a combination of good yield with reasonable growth will give the best outcome.
*sigh* So I guess you don't understand why they would care about no risk....  If the sub company fails, but had no debt, then the parent company only loses whatever money they invested in the sub company  If the sub company fails and had debt:    The parent company is responsible for those debts and must pay them if in the agreement with the bank the parent company is responsible.    The parent company is not responsible for those debts if in the agreement with the banks, they did not agree to be collateral if the sub company went bankrupt. Not likely that a bank would agree to this though. They might even try to sue the parent company so they could get some reimbursement.
I don't know why people say Yahoo! is a failure. It's still around and still has tens of millions of users and makes millions in profit to this day. Just because it's not the leader it may have once been in every service it offers doesn't mean it's not wildly successful.
Many small businesses are still cash and check.  For example my landlord does not take credit card or online transfer.   My choices are cash and check, and I prefer checks for the paper trail.
Especially since one of the main reasons why private equity firms buy a company is because it's financially distressed and on their way to bankruptcy without the large cash infusion that private equity firms bring.  For these businesses, layoffs and outsourcing are a matter of survival.  This isn't an example of an already prosperous company like Apple or Nike engaging in this behavior because it provides a small boost to their already astronomical profits.
The biggest issue with personal bankruptcy is the guilt.  We generally are brought up to believe that we should be responsible for our debts.  Bankruptcy is a direct contradiction to that concept.  Once a debtor realizes that corporations don't necessarily view bankruptcy as failure, but merely a financial tool, that makes it a lot easier to let go of the guilt.  Once that happens, all a debtor needs to get used to is the idea that s/he'll be dealing with a cash economy for a while.  Which isn't a particularly bad thing at all.  Inconvenient at times, but that's about it.
A short list  1) Inability to survive the financial crisis without government assistance.  2) Underperformance compared to other similar institutions, mostly because of problems relating to point 1  3) Previous work experience  4) Financial products whose value to the consumer is less so than comparable products from similar institutions
In the United states the US government has the Small Business Administration. They also have Small Business Development Centers SMDC to help. These are also supported by state governments and colleges and universities.  SBDCs provide services through professional business advisors such as:   development of business plans; manufacturing assistance; financial   packaging and lending assistance; exporting and importing support;   disaster recovery assistance; procurement and contracting aid; market   research services; aid to 8(a) firms in all stages; and healthcare   information. SBDCs serve all populations, including: minorities;   women; veterans, including reservists, active duty, disabled   personnel, and those returning from deployment; personnel with   disabilities; youth and encore entrepreneurs; as well as individuals   in low and moderate income urban and rural areas. Based on client   needs, local business trends and individual business requirements,   SBDCs modify their services to meet the evolving needs of the hundreds   of small business community in which they are situated. SBDC assistance is available virtually anywhere with 63 Host networks   branching out with more than 900 service delivery points throughout   the U.S., the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa   and the U.S. Virgin Islands,. Your local SBDC should be able to help you identify local sources of funds, including government backed loans for small businesses.
Aside from the market implications Victor and JB King mention, another possible reason is the dividends they pay. Usually, the dividends a company pays are dependent on the profit the company made. if a company makes less profit, the dividends turn out smaller. This might incite unrest among the shareholders, because this means that they get paid less dividends, which makes that share more likely to be sold, and thus for the price to fall.