vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I'd approach the lender that you're getting the lease from, but be prepared for them either saying 'no' to putting the lease into the name of an LLC without any proven track record (because it hasn't been around for a while) or require you to sign a personal guarantee, which partially defeats the purpose of putting the car lease into the LLC. I'd also talk to an accountant to see if you can't just charge the business the mileage on your vehicle as that might be the simplest solution, especially if the lender gets stroppy. Of course the mileage rate might not cover the expense for the lease as that one is designed to cover the steepest part of the depreciation curve. Does your LLC generate the revenue needed so it can take on the lease in the first place? If it's a new business you might not need or want the drain on your finances that a lease can be.
Another person, not a shareholder or director, will be treated as when a bank loans you money. You are loaning out money and you are sort of getting interest income out of it or some other benefit, which needs to be put down in you company's annual return. Full source on the HMRC website. But for a shareholder or director is different matter. Check the HMRC source for sure and check with your accountant, if you have one. If you owe your company money You or your company may have to pay tax if you take a director’s loan. Your personal and company tax responsibilities depend on how the loan is settled. You also need to check if you have extra tax responsibilities if: If the loan was more than £10,000 (£5,000 in 2013-14) If you’re a shareholder and director and you owe your company more than £10,000 (£5,000 in 2013 to 2014) at any time in the year, your company must: You must report the loan on your personal Self Assessment tax return. You may have to pay tax on the loan at the official rate of interest. If you paid interest below the official rate If you’re a shareholder and director, your company must: You must report the interest on your personal Self Assessment tax return. You may have to pay tax on the difference between the official rate and the rate you paid.
Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an ""education expense"", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now.
AFAIK, individual 401k accounts are supposed to be funded from self-employment earnings, not from rollovers from 401k plans of previous employers. So, check with your accountant before making opening an individual 401k account and getting your previous 401k plan to re-issue the checks to be payable to your individual 401k account. You might also want to ask about whether loans are permitted from individual 401k accounts (my guess is they are not because the possibility of abuse of the privilege is too high since the employer and employee are the same individual).  In any case, loans against 401k plans are generally not a good idea, and many people on this forum have blogged about this matter.
What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities:  The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company.
If the company went bankrupt, the issued public shares that were outstanding at the time most likely were voided, in which case your shares are most definitely gone.  The company might have done a new stock issuance coming out of bankruptcy with a different symbol, and while it could be substantially the same company, it doesn't mean much for you.  It's unfortunate this may be the case, but it is one of the risks of investing.
Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well.
Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.
Here is a good example of why our bankruptcy laws need some tweeking:  &gt;This horror story begins with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing made by AMR Corp. (the holding company that owns American Airlines) last November. Bankruptcy, conventionally speaking, is about restructuring debts owed to banks and bondholders. But most of American’s debt was backed by hard assets like airplanes. What’s more, AMR actually had some cash on hand at the time of the filing. The debts American really wanted to restructure were the implicit debts to employees. As S&amp;P analyst Philip Baggaley put it at the time, the goal was to “reorganize in Chapter 11 and emerge as a somewhat smaller airline with more competitive labor costs and a lighter debt load.” In other words, American went into bankruptcy primarily so it could pay people less.
Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high.
"By definition, a downturn in the business cycle will push some companies into bankruptcy. What's worse, a downturn in the business cycle will trigger ""bankruptcy fears"" for a LOT of companies, far more than will suffer this fate. So the prices of MANY candidates go down to levels that reflect this fear. This aggregate impact produces the ""overreaction"" you're talking about. It's called ""fallacy of composition""; some of these companies will go under, but not all. Then the prices of the survivors will bounce back strongly during the early stages of an upturn when it becomes clear which companies WON'T go bankrupt."
There are two common filings under the bankruptcy code. Chapter 11 provides for the company to be reorganized and prevents the creditors from suing for their debts for a period. Hopefully the company becomes profitable and can pay the creditors later, possibly negotiating a reduction in debt, or an exchange of stock for debt. Chapter 7 is liquidation, in which the company is sold with the proceeds going to the creditors. (I may have some of this wrong, as I am just writing this off the top of my head.)
Typically if the company is so out of whack that it's liquidating, it won't have assets to even cover all its debts never mind enough to return anything back to owners.  If there was any shot of the company continuing as an ongoing concern it would file an 11 and reorganize.
If you're not insolvent, doing something like this is both a moral and legal hazard: When you are insolvent, the tax and moral hazard issues can be a non-issue. Setting up a scenario that makes you appear to be insolvent is where the fraud comes in. If you decide to go down this road, spend a few thousand dollars on competent legal advice.
"Except the list of exceptions seems to be growing and growing.   You can only go bankrupt once, and certain loans are exempt from bankruptcy anyway.  Want to level the playing field?  Make CEO's responsible too for ""certain debts"" like payroll."
I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation.
First, it all depends on whether the wrong person actually goes bankrupt at all, which would be very unlikely if not impossible in an economic scenario of perfect competition (this is because a share of your market is practically guaranteed).    Second, Securing new capital to keep things going would be relatively simple; At a new bond auction, people can put new measured capital in, and they get new bonds out, increasing their wallet size (if someone invests $500 of capital at a 5% interest rate for a one year bond, they immediately get back a note with the purchasing power of $525, which they can spend right away if they wish (if inflation is going to happen anyway, why not beat it to the punch?)).    Third, it's not as if every single company in the whole territory is going to have their bonds zooming around as the money supply at one time; They might be as few as five at one time to twenty at another, depending on the diversity of peoples preferences for monetary activity, be it an easy or tight monetary policy (obviously the market would decide exchange rates, no one's arguing that)   Fourth, even if they ever did go bankrupt, since you already used up your share of their bonds, the other firms can't blame you for that, because you honestly went about using them with no knowledge that the firm would go bankrupt ever.  Think of the Schrodinger's cat assumption applying.
As Mhoran said, the risks of buying a bankrupt company are huge, and even successful bankruptcy turnarounds don't involve keeping the same stock. For instance, the GM bankruptcy was resolved by the company more or less selling all its valuable assets (brands, factories, inventory) to a new version of itself, using that money to pay off what liabilities it could, and then dissolving. The new company then issued new stock, and you had to buy the new stock to see it rise; the old stock became worthless. AA could have gone the same way; Delta could have bought it out of bankruptcy and consumed it outright, with any remaining shareholders being paid off at market value. That's probably the best the market was hoping for. Instead, the deal is a much more equal merger; AMR brings a very large airport network and aircraft fleet to the table, and Delta brings its cash, an also-considerable fleet and network, and a management team that's kept that airline solvent. The stockholders, therefore, expect to be paid off at a much higher per-share price, either in a new combined stock, in Delta stock, or in cash.
A bank is insolvent when it can no longer meet its short-term obligations.  In this example, the bank is insolvent when depositors withdraw more cash than the bank can pay out. In this case, it's probably something in the range of $600-700k, because the bank can borrow money from other banks using assets as collateral. In the US, we manage this risk in a few ways. First, FDIC insurance provides a level of assurance that in a worst-case scenario, most depositors will have access to their money guaranteed by the government. This prevents bank panics and reduces the demand for cash. The risk that remains is the risk that you brought up in your scenario -- bad debt or investments that are valued inappropriately. We mitigate this risk by giving the Federal Reserve and in some instances the US Treasure the ability to provide nearly unlimited capital to get over short/mid-term issues brought on by the market. In cases of long-term, structural issues with the bank balance sheets, regulators like the FDIC, Federal Reserve and others have the ability to assume control of the bank and sell off its assets to other, stronger institutions. The current financial regime has its genesis in the bank panics of the 1890's, when the shift from an agricultural based economy (where no capital is available until the crops come in!) to an industrial economy revealed the weakness of the unregulated model where ad hoc groups of banks backed each other up. Good banks were being destroyed by panics until a trusted third party (JP Morgan) stepped in, committed capital and make personal guarantees.
It depends.  If you’re a lowly peon, bankrupting is bad because you deprive the hard-working bourgeois who have worked very hard to give you some debt, and by not repaying your debt to them, you are punishing their business success and depriving them of their rightfully owned interest (and principal). And this is not moral at all, as this is highly frowned upon by the lord Jesus Christ himself.  However, if you’re a big croporation, bankrupcy is good because it enables you to restructure your financial environment to insure a better efficiency in maximizing the debt-to-equity ratio of your stakeholders without tying them up with excessive liability that would be detrimental to their cash flow positivity.
You should double-check what it means to be in [Chapter 11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code)  Yes, by filing for bankruptcy, the company gets some protection from creditors and some of their investment dries up, but it's the owners who take it on the nose first.  Also, individuals can file for Chapter 11, too.  It's not just corporations.
From my limited experience, having taken a class on Bankruptcy in order to become a paralegal, Chapter 11 is the portion of the Bankruptcy Code that allows certain corporate entities to reorganize. Basically, the entity files for bankruptcy protection to halt credit collections or any number of reasons, and then work with the courts to get out. If the entity can put together a reasonable sounding restructuring plan, the court may allow them to do it. A restructuring plan essentially is a plan of who to pay back, when, and by what means (this is seriously a simple explanation, it's much more complex than this). So if the Court approves the plan, the entity will attempt to carry it out and come out of bankruptcy several years down the road in a more solvent position. If the Court rejects the plan or the plan fails, then the entity has to then engage in Chapter 7 proceedings (selling assets to pay off debts).
Yes, you are. When someone is bankrupt their assets are being sold to satisfy the creditors. Your note is an asset, and will be sold. You'll be making payments to the entity that buys it.
There do not appear to be any specific legal measures to prevent bankruptcies.  In fact, they seems to be part of the means for which rates are raised, for the consequent aim of lowering inflation. See:  The Budgetary Implications of Higher Federal Reserve Board Interest Rates by Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research. The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) is widely expected to start raising   interest rates some time in 2015. The purpose of higher interest rates   is to slow the economy and prevent inflation. This is done by reducing   the rate of job creation and thereby reducing the ability of workers   to achieve wage gains.
"Bankruptcy is a way to the fiat currency system to regulate itself.  The current system assume that there will always be more debts than money available.  Since money is created with debt already attached to it, the difference between ""real"" money, and ""on paper"" money build up over time.  When this disparity become to big, bankruptcies need to occur to bring those two number closer to each other.    It's like earthquakes if you like, the tectonic plates build up tension that need to be released in many small shocks, or a few big shocks.  The everyday bankruptcies represent the small quakes, and big recession represent too much build up that need to be released in one big shocks.    It's a very high level explanation and it doesn't go into details, but it's roughly why it happens.    EDIT: I wasn't saying that it was bad or not, I was simply explaining bankruptcy and why it's bound to happen.  If you don't like the analogy, it's no reason for downvote.  I know it may not be clear for everyone, but if you do not agree, please explain yourself."
If you were dependent on a stock portfolio and/or a line of credit, you'd be up a creek, because the value of your investments suddenly decreased, and you can't really tap your now significantly limited line of credit. However, if you had a one or more of cash savings, unemployment income, and unemployment insurance, you would probably have been OK. Budgeting for an emergency When you say ""financial emergency"", most people think job loss. However, the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. Depending on your insurance situation, this could be a serious risk, or it may not be. People say you should have 3x-6x of your monthly income in savings because it's an easy, back-of-the-envelope way to handle most financial emergency risk, but it's not necessarily the most prudent strategy for you. To properly budget for an emergency, you need to fully take into account what emergencies you are likely to face, and what sources of financing you would have access to given the likely factors that led to that emergency. Generally, having a savings account with some amount of liquid cash is an important part of a risk-mitigation strategy. But it's not a panacea for every kind of emergency."
"The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the ""penny stock"" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it."
That's the foundation of Limited Liability.  There is a corporate veil that protects your personal assets from that of your business.  The corporate veil can be pierced if you do certain stuff and thus your personal assets will get effected.  This allows people to start companies and innovate more and take more risks knowing that they could not be personally liable if the business folds.
"Oh please. Most of the unsecured creditors who get screwed in bankruptcy are large banks. They know the risk going in which is why unsecured lends at a high interest rate. Yes, trade creditors often do get screwed but it's a cost of doing business -- it's why a vendor needs to monitor its receivables and watch for signs of insolvency and adjust the terms of trade accordingly.  You should have made sure you were covered by brokerage insurance before handing money to a company like that. The ""I'm the little guy"" argument is just weak."
I've worked on numerous restructurings in the o&amp;g space. I assure you that bankruptcy is not a magical process of wiping away debt. It's been extremely common over the last 3 years in the energy industry. It'd be far more aggressive to say that a business is valued at $5 billion when in reality they have $5 billion in debt that traded at pennies on the dollar.
Here are some plausible reasons why markets might continue to close: