vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position).  Client B then sells the shares.  The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore.    The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position.  This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.
I'm a Finance major in Finland and here is how it would go here. As you loan money to the company, the company has no income, but gains an asset and a liability. When the company then uses the money to pay the bills it does have expenses that accumulate to the end of the accounting period where they have to be declared. These expenses are payed from the asset gained and has no effect to the liability. When the company then makes a profit it is taxable. How ever this taxable profit may be deducted from from a tax reserve accumulated over the last loss periods up to ten years. When the company then pays the loan back it is divided in principal and interest. The principal payment is a deduction in the company's liabilities and has no tax effect. The interest payment the again does have effect in taxes in the way of decreasing them. On your personal side giving loan has no effect. Getting the principal back has no effect. Getting interest for the loan is taxable income. When there are documents signifying the giving the loan and accounting it over the years, there should be no problem paying it back.
A person name Matthew Drury or a similar name owes money on their loan, and it has gone to collections. The collections company is trying to match the account to a real person with money. They sent a letter to somebody (your grandmother) with the same last name. The debtor may have even lived in that town at sometime.  The reason you received the letter is because your grandmother forward it on. Because the rest of your info (SSN and birth date) don't match the loan it is unlikely they can attach the debt to you. Unless you provided your address to the company you could in the future receive a letter from them. But I doubt they are going to send letters to everybody with the same name. I would not worry about it unless they actually send a letter or call you directly.
The old truck is collateral for a loan. The place that made the loan expects that if you can't pay they can repossess that old truck. If you sell it they can't repossess it.  The dealer needs clean title to be able to buy the truck from you, so they can fix up the truck and sell it to somebody else. I am assuming the the lender has filed paperwork with the state to show their lien on the title. Your options are three: As to option 2: If the deal still makes sense the new car dealer can send the $9,000 to the lender that you forgot about. That will of course increase the amount of money you have to borrow.  You will also run into the problem that this loan that you forgot to mention on your credit application may cause them to rethink the decision to loan you the money.
"Basically, these guys break all your eggs then try to make an omelet.  Your lender(s) must really believe that you have no ability to pay before they'll settle, which generally entails not paying them until your creditworthiness is in the tank.  Bankruptcy laws exist for a reason.  If your credit is in the tank, you can't make your payments and you're shopping to settle your debts, it's not likely a bankruptcy would worsen your situation; in fact, quite the opposite.  But, people have hugely negative feelings toward bankruptcy and don't want to be called a ""deadbeat"", these services prey on those people."
Are there any documented cases of OneWest foreclosing on people that were current on their mortgage payments?  If not, this seems like much ado about nothing.  If you're a deadbeat and don't pay your mortgage, the lender has every right to take your house.
It could be a couple of things besides extra principal: I seem to remember hearing that some (shady?) lenders would just pocket extra payments if you didn't specify where they were headed, but I've also been told that this just isn't true.
"The risk is that you will owe the bank the principal amount of the mortgage. Based on your question it would be foolish for you to sign. Anyone who describes a mortgage as ""something"" obviously has no idea what they are doing and should never sign a mortgage which is a promise to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. You would be doubly foolish to sign the mortgage because if you are guaranteeing the loan, you own nothing. So, for example, if your friend sold the house, pocketed the money, then left the country you would owe the full amount of the mortgage. Since you are not on the deed there is no way you can prevent this from happening. He does not need your approval to sell the house. So, essentially what your ""friend"" is doing is asking you to assume all the risk of the mortgage with none of the benefits, since he gets the house, not you. If a ""girlfriend"" is involved, that just increases the risk you will have a problem. Also, although it is not clear, it appears this is a second house for him. If so, that disqualifies him from any mortgage assistance or relief, so the risk is even higher. Basically, it would foolish in the extreme to co-sign the loan."
I've lived in a few shared houses in my time. One house had one unemployed guy, two students, and two of us earning very little. We had individual rental agreements with the landlord, so if one of us missed a few payments they'd be liable for eviction without affecting the others. To be honest I've not heard of this arrangement elsewhere. Every other rental agreement I had we signed a joint contract. I've had to pay housemates bills a couple of times to avoid a judgement against us and it was a pain getting my money back and strained our friendship. I'm still owed a few hundred that I'll never see again. In general if you can't trust your housemates to pay their bills you're probably better off looking for somewhere else to live.
If you've agreed to pay the money, then you owe them whether they have a valid credit card number of yours or not. If they want to report your debt to a collections agency and/or credit bureau, they can. Which would suck for you. It may not be that likely over $9.99 or whatever, but my point is that it's still a small risk even with a temporary card number.
I dunno.  Borrow $65,000 with zero collateral, string the lender along for 20+ years, then die?  Sounds like a great decision to me.  I wonder why a bank would ever take the other end of that lemon of a deal?  Oh, right...
He doesn't have to follow through on this, but he could tell this sister that he will stop making mortgage payments, which will result in foreclosure and sale at lower price than might be realized by a voluntary sale. Translation: the house will sold, sis. Do you want to maximize your share of the proceeds?  And, as I said in a comment above: I hope that he is keeping careful records of mortgage an utility payments, as he might (should) be entitled to a refund from the proceeds of an eventual sale (possibly adjusted by the fair rent value of the time which he spent living there)
You can be a co-borrower on the property that your father owns. Some Banks require that you also be part owner of the property, some banks do not require this. You can take a home loan for a new property, normally Banks will ask you of all your current loans [auto/other home/personal/ etc] to determine the amount they will be ready to lend. Edit: The first loan I believe your father already has a property in his name ... your father can apply for Loan against property ... if he does not have sufficient income, then you can guarantee the loan [ie co-sign on the loan, some banks allow this ... however there is no tax benefit on this loan]  .   The second is the Home Loan for the balance amount that you would get it … Both the loans can be taken from the same Bank, there would be a overall cap as to the amount of loan a Bank would give depending on your income, further the finance for this house will only be to the extent of 80% of the value.
If you've been paying on the car for three years, it's possible that your credit is in a place where you don't need a co-signer any more. See if your bank will re-fi with you as the sole debtor.  If they won't do it, find another institution who will.  The re-fi will take your grandpa off the loan, and whichever institution that does the re-fi will still have a lien on the title until you pay it off.  Then, if you can do this soon enough, figure out if grandpa can sign you off the title.
"This does not seem, to me, to be a very good indication regarding the   risk of the person not paying their balances off. If you do not have a source of income then how are you going to repay your debt.  Not to mention there is recource for creditors to garnish wages.  That is not possible if you have no income.  The risk assessment is about the ability of the creditor to recover any moneys loaned and costs and still make a profit. For example, students have their parents pay them some pocket money to   cover for expenses, or a person might be working sporadically on   consulting gigs that do not have a fixed monthly or yearly component. Most credit card companies that are willing to issue to college students will allow you to include money from your parents in your income.  Credit card companies are looking for customers that will carry a balance and incur fees but be able to pay them.  These companies do not make money off of fees and interest that they do not collect.  As such, sporatic work increases risk. Is it possible for people to get approved for unsecured credit cards   if they don't hold (or have not held for some time) a job at the time   of application? I was able to while I was in college.  Though I did have a part time job.  If you can show that you have the ability to pay you can usually get a credit card if you do not have bad credit.  It will probably be high interest and have alot of fees some of them you will have to pay upfront.  But what you probably mean to ask is ""Is it possible to get a no cost unsecured credit card with out a reliable source of income?""  The answer to that is: probably not.  Even the ones that look like they are free probably have hidden fees."
Yes you will pay interest and youll have to ensure you dont have an early pay off penalty.   Just say you cant make it in until later in the week. The time for the loan paperwork and the hit to your credit score (what happens if you dont get approved by some freak reason?) In myopinion its worth the wait because even with the loan youll most likely have to put aome money down and depending on where you live youll have loan setup fees or a percentage takwn out for loan origination fees.
In the U.S., there are two kinds of court cases: civil and criminal.  Only a crime can put you in jail. Simply the fact that you owe someone money cannot land you in jail.  If you agree to pay money to someone, and then you don't pay, you have not committed a crime.  However, you may have committed a crime in the way that you became in debt.  For example, as Joe mentioned in his answer, if you write a bad check and give it to someone as payment, you will owe them money (not a crime), but you will also have committed fraud, which is a crime that can put you in jail. Another example is the IRS.  The IRS cannot put you in jail simply for having unpaid taxes.  However, it is a crime to lie on your tax return and evade taxes.  It is an important distinction.
Maybe. As other have said, doing this deliberately is fraud, but almost impossible to prove unless you've lied on the loan documents or discussed your plans with witnesses. The lender may consider negotiating a partial write-down of the loan, but that is far from their only option. Depending on the details of the loan agreement they may be able to garnish your wages, seize your property, or walk into your business with a sheriffs' deputy and empty your cash register. They may also be able to add their costs for recovering the money to your debt.
"Repurchase agreements are a way of financing a security position. You have a collateralized loan where you give your security in exchange for cash. Let's say you have a 10 year Treasury note paying 3.5% while the 1-week repurchase rate is 0.5%. You loan the security to someone with a promise to repurchase it from them some time in the future. You  collect the 3.5% coupon and you pay the 0.5% interest. Clearly it makes no sense for someone to collect interest on money and also collect coupon payments. And for the counter-party it makes no sense to be not getting coupon payments and also to be paying interest. This how one website explains the process: During the transaction, any coupon payments that come due belong to   the legal owner, the ""borrower."" However, when this happens, a cash   amount equal to the coupon is paid to the original owner, this is   called ""manufactured payment."" In order to avoid the tax payment on   the coupon, some institutions will repo the security to a tax exempt   entity and receive the manufactured payment and avoid the tax (""coupon   washing"") I find this unequivocal description to be the clearest During the life of the transaction the market risk and the credit risk   of the collateral remain with the seller. (Because he has agreed to   repurchase the asset for an agreed sum of money at maturity). Provided   the trade is correctly documented if the collateral has a coupon   payment during the life of the repo the buyer is obliged to pay this   to the seller."
With no agreement in place, the other person can go after half the equity in the house. In my opinion, wanting their down payment back seems reasonable.
" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!"
"what are the incentives to that person to actually pay off his/her debt as opposed to just walking away from it and relying on the cash (s)he has for the future spending needs as opposed to borrowing Well, you can't just ""walk away"" from debt - you still owe it. Eventually your creditors would end up suing you in court for the money, plus interest owed.  I suppose you could try to continually duck the authorities, but you'd still owe the money legally."
Possession is 9/10 of the law, and any agreement between you and your grandfather is covered under the uniform commercial code covering contracts.  As long as your fulfilling your obligation of making payments, the contract stands as originally agreed upon between you and the lender.  In short, the car is yours until you miss payments, sell it, or it gets totalled.  The fact that your upside down on value to debt isn't that big of a deal as long as you have insurance that is covering what is owed.
According to the Trulia reference on the issue, New York is a recourse state. Recourse means that the lender can go after you for the difference between the foreclosure discharge amount (in New York - the higher of the FMV or the actual sale price) and the debt balance. That includes garnishing your wages, seizing your assets, and any other method of collecting the judgement. The relevant law is in the New York Consolidated Laws - RPA Article 13. The option you're talking about is the option any lender has anywhere - not to sue you for the difference (provision 3 of the paragraph): If  no  motion  for  a deficiency judgment shall be made as herein   prescribed the proceeds of the sale regardless of amount shall be   deemed   to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and no right   to  recover   any deficiency in any action or proceeding shall exist. So if during the foreclosure they didn't sue you for the difference - they cannot change their mind after that. If you're not sure you can repay the loan - you should probably walk away from the deal.
You also might want to see what sort of documentation the credit card company has. Companies can get pretty lazy sometimes about recordkeeping; there have been cases where banks tried to foreclose on a property but weren't able to produce documents establishing the mortgage. With your father dead, is there anything other than the credit card company's word that the debt is valid?
If they own the old house outright, they can mortgage it to you. In many jurisdictions this relieves you of the obligation to chase for payment, and of any worry that you won't get paid, because a transfer of ownership to the new owner cannot be registered until any charge against a property (ie. a mortgage) has been discharged. The cost of to your friends of setting up the mortgage will be less than the opulent interest they are offering you, and you will both have peace of mind. Even if the sale of the old house falls through, you will still be its mortgagee and still assured of repayment on any future sale (or even inheritance). Complications arise if the first property is mortgaged. Although second mortgages are possible (and rank behind first mortgages in priority of repayment) the first mortgagee generally has a veto on the creation of second mortgages.
It depends completely on the nature of the takeover. When a business is bought, the new owner takes on the obligations of the prior owner, the debts don't just go away. When a business files for bankruptcy, its debts may get discharged, and gift card holders can easily be the first ones to get nothing back. A case in point was Sharper Image who stopped honoring gift cards even while the doors were open as they filed for bankruptcy.
There are interpersonal relationships risks which you should consider. These are most likely to eventuate following a financial problem, and depend on your existing relationship.  In this answer I'm going to focus on the financial risks.  This is not financial advice, but my understanding as someone who has done this. This is best thought of as a loan from my parents to myself.  The main financial risks for my parents (the lenders): To avoid these risks, I need to ensure that I am sufficient ahead of loan repayments that I have the full amount of principal available to repay at any time.   Redraw Facility While some loans may allow for redraw, you should check the fine print of your loan agreement.  A redraw is like borrowing from the bank using existing collateral.  There could be some circumstances under which the bank does not allow redraw, even though you are ahead of loan repayments.  This might happen if house prices drop enough that you no longer have equity. Offset Account To avoid this problem, the loaned money is best put in an offset account.  An offset account reduces the interest on the loan.  Importantly, the money in the offset account is yours.  Withdrawal from the offset account does not represent a new borrowing but is a withdrawal from savings account.  Savings are government guaranteed to some figure.
Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow.  Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little.  It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited.  Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.
You can either write it off or pursue it. If you write it off I wouldn't do business with the client again, until they bring their balance owed to you back to zero.  If you pursue it, try to reach out to the client and find out why they are not paying what they owe you and try to work out a deal with them if they seem negotiable. If they aren't negotiable then you could take the issue to court, but you'll only be proving a point by then.
"Unless you can make an agreement with your landlord, your credit is on the bubble in this situation and it may be difficult to get the landlord to void the terms of the original agreement in lieu of a new one. I was burned by a similar situation when I was in college. I rented an apartment with my then ""best friend"". I sent my half of the rent in on time and he consistently skipped out on his. My credit took a blow to the tune of the shared liability just the same. Seriously seek to work something out with the landlord because it sounds like if things continue as they are, whether you move out or not, your credit will take a hit."