vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest ""check cashing"", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear.
One more scenario is when the company already has maturing debt.  e.g Company took out a debt of 2 billion in 2010 and is maturing 2016. It has paid back say 500 million but has to pay back the debtors the remaining 1.5 billion. It will again go to the debt markets to fund this 1.5 billion maybe at better terms than the 2010 issue based on market conditions and its business. The debt is to keep the business running or grow it. The people issuing debt will do complete research before issuing the debt. It can always sell stock but that results in dilution and affects shareholders. Debt also affects shareholders but when interest rates are lower, companies tend to go to debt markets. Although sometimes they can just do a secondary and be done with it if the float is low.
If one of the EURO countries goes bankrupt, then it will destablise the entire financial industry. IE there would be many financial institutions [Banks, Credit Union, Pension Funds, Insurance Funds, Corporates] that are holding EURO Investments in that country will loose their money and this will have a cascading impact ... similar and much bigger than US Sub-prime crisis of 2008. So if your money is in EURO and you are staying in EURO countires, the inflation will mean your money is of less value ... If you are holding USD and staying in EURO and country goes bankrupt then chances are that it will loose value with USD and hence you can convert them to EURO and spend more EUROs to buy the same items ...
Just clarifying in case some people just skim and walk away thinking the author is bankrupt. Kiyosaki is involved in many business ventures. One of his companies filed for bankruptcy, which is a separate entity to himself. He himself did not lose any personal assets and is still very rich. Thanks for reading.
It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes.  If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value.  Same thing with a US state going bankrupt.  If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.
The most common causes are monopoly pricing structures, such as those enabled by laws that restrict competition or by high fixed costs in a particular marketplace. The inefficiency associated with artificial scarcity is formally known as a deadweight loss. *** **Perverse incentive** A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers. Perverse incentives are a type of negative unintended consequence or cobra effect. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27"
Enron did a wide range of dodgy financial accounting, using tricks to severely mis-represent their financial situation. They then used these doctored accounts to fool lenders and stock-buyers that the company had more money, and fewer debts or problems, than it really had. Eventually they ran out of money and went bankrupt, leaving the lenders and stock-buyers with nothing.
Banks cannot survive without the government.  Once people lose faith in the governement, the banking system will fail.  The banking system failing is a symptom of the issue, not a cause.  Backstopping the banks protects the general populace, and prevents runs which will actually destroy the banking system.  The burden shifts from the banks to the government.  But a gaurantee is not an actual payment.  The banks still operate as normal without any cash from the government, but with the knowledge that, if they ARE over extended, the government will take on their debt.  the government gaurantee lowers the rates that the banks pay to raise debt to continue to operate.  So let's say PIIGS fully bail out their banking system, paying off all debt, that's worse case.  Where does the money come from?   Revenues, aka taxes.  If the gov't takes on the bank debt and has positve revenue, no problem, a little less hand outs, but the country as a whole benefits from having a functioning banking system.  If revenues are poor or negative, however, it's just adding to the deficit.  Gov't can print money, don't forget.   But if revenues are poor and there's no hope to see them improve...Boom, all hell breaks loose, and you get Europe.
I can see that building credit is a valid reason. I would also suggest another scenario, when you have locked up money in long-term savings, with a substantial penalty for early withdrawal. If you suddenly needed money then you might save money by borrowing against the long-term deposit rather than pay the penalties. This is especially true if you needed the money only for a short time.
I believe that the same message could be sent without shutting the company and putting thousands of people on unemployment and hurting shareholders. Dissolving the company would only hurt everyone except the people responsible who almost certainly have golden parachutes in their employment contracts.  How about penalizing them by assessing an extra cyber-breach tax on their revenues? Or seizing stock options and assets of the top level execs and only releasing portions after X many months without a security breach? Or use the fines to fund an initiative that companies need to be bonded against data loss with the rates set by security experts doing audits on the companies?  There are plenty of ways to improve the situation without putting them out of business. At the very worst, the company should be put up for sale to be taken over by a holding company that can manage the process of bolstering their security instead of just liquidating assets which would only hurt the innocent bystanders in the incident.
"Legally speaking, if you do close a limited company, the funds belong to the government (""bona vacantia""). There's some guidance on this at Companies House and there is indeed a substantial amount of administration work to get it undone. Notable excerpts: You should deal with any loose ends, such as closing the company’s   bank account, the transfer of any domain names - before you apply. [...] From the date of dissolution, any assets of a dissolved company will   belong to the Crown. The company’s bank account will be frozen and any   credit balance in the account will pass to the Crown. [...] 4. What happens to the assets of a dissolved company? From the date of dissolution, any assets of a dissolved company will   be 'bona vacantia'. Bona vacantia literally means “vacant goods” and   is the technical name for property that passes to the Crown because it   does not have a legal owner. The company’s bank account will be frozen   and any credit balance in the account will be passed to the Crown. [...] Chapter 3 - Restoration by Court Order The registrar can only restore a company if he receives a court order,   unless a company is administratively restored to the register (see   chapter 4).  Anyone who intends to make an application to the court to   restore a company is advised to obtain independent legal advice. [...] Chapter 4 - Administrative Restoration 1. What is Administrative Restoration? Under certain conditions, where a company was dissolved because it   appeared to be no longer carrying on business or in operation, a   former director or member may apply to the registrar to have the   company restored. [...]"
a business cliche gets that way because it is a time-saving referent to a common business concept, procedure, and/or belief.    you can learn a lot about the culture of a company or industry from the cliches that it uses.  taken out of proper context - nope, they aren't that useful.
First article says store closures are due to online shopping, then because people are spending less on clothes and more on restaurants and travel.   How about we are just spending less because we have been bled dry? You can only funnel money to the top for so long. At some point there is less to funnel.
So Bain buys the company in 2010 which at the time has no debt. 7 years later the company files for bankruptcy and blames outdated systems and online retail.    Sounds like complete bullshit to me. I wonder how much Bain sucked out of the company before letting it wither out and die?  I'm guessing the purchase of the company was financed against Gymboree and then add some hefty management fees and cut back on capital expenses and all of sudden the company is no longer profitable.
"Just remember that the numbers can be quite remote from the realities . Look at the corporations that are crashing and ask yourself - ""would any of the numbers have told me what was going wrong with the corporations and what needed to be done to fix them ?"" . Look at , for example , Sony , HMV , Best Buy etc. ."
US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.
If it is an extremely large amount and assets are very small, bankruptcy is a good route in so far as it will legally take care of a lot of loose ends and likely relieve most or all of the burden of actually owing the money. Credit-wise, 10 years is the maximum a bankruptcy (specifically) will appear on a credit report. Accounts may drop off a credit report before bankruptcy because they are past the seven years they can be legally reported. Debts owed to the state such as child support, student loans, income tax, etc. generally cannot be written off and aren't subject normal debt statute of limitations on collection. Finally, bad credit is bad credit -- there is likely to be little difference in terms of ability to get loans between bankruptcy and attempting to dodge legal action to make debts time-barred. If the debt is significant, bankruptcy may be the only sensible option."
That's actually a pretty good way to get bankrupt quick. You can get rich quick through lottery, gambling, mere saving or investing wisely, or marrying someone from the Kennedy or Bush clans. Starting a business is one of the ways to become a millionaire, but definitely not the only one.
So the concern is not from the business operation side but from the consumer side -- the business owners are worried their customers will cut back and reduce their business? OK, that actually makes sense. It's too bad professional writers can't clearly express a simple idea like that in an article on the topic. Thanks for clearing that up.
Thousands of people are going to suffer because of this.  It is inevitable, these inept companies must fail, but _all this suffering makes me sad._  I'm pretty astonished at the rage that this sentiment has excited.  Can you explain why this idea bothers you so much?
Here's an excerpt: If a company you've got a stake in files for bankruptcy, chances are you'll get back pennies to the dollar. Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last. In this article, we'll explain what happens when a public company files for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws and how it affects investors. [...] How It Affects Investors [...] When your company goes bankrupt, there is a very good chance you will not get back the full value of your investment. In fact, there is a chance you won't get anything back. [...] Wikipedia has a good article on Chapter 11 bankruptcy at Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code.
If the market believes that the company is overstaffed, then management acknowledging the issue and resolving the problem can result in the price going up.  It can also mean that external events drove the price up, and the bad news was lost in the other issues of the day. Sometimes layoffs are a sign of the company entering a long downward spiral; in other cases it is a sign of the beginning recovery. The layoffs can also be viewed as good news if they weren't as big as some experts feared.  You have to look at the exact situation to understand why news x impacts the companies price.
Actually, the logical conclusion is that, if airlines are unable to pay workers acceptable wages and remain profitable, they should be allowed to fail.   But that isn't acceptable because we need air travel.   Deregulating labour markets definitely isn't going to improve the plight of millions of workers. It might improve the plight of some shareholders though.
But my sense of common law countries is that, like the US, they are primarily concerned about negligence (incompetently or imprudently neglecting to understand the business and make informed decisions), disloyalty (fraudulently engaging in self-interested transactions that either hurt the company or should have been offered to the company), and recklessness (not bothering to seek out information). As long as you are active, informed, engaged, and not engaging in secret deals outside the company (especially deals where either side is competing with the company), then that would be more than sufficient under the US standard. If you are concerned about liability, then inquire into indemnifications by the company (in the US, the company can usually pay all legal costs of directors), insurance, and legal counsel. I imagine your business partners are no more savvy than you are. My impression is you are overreacting to relatively rare and exotic expression of corporate law (at least in the US). But I'll close by repeating that I don't know Australian corporate law.
What helped them is they had some troubles earlier than everyone else, before the banking crisis hit. So they fixed things then and didn't have to go through the fire sale that everyone else dealt with. From what I've read in the past, it was more luck than it was good management. Although people will happily take credit for it.
The U.S. bankruptcy laws no longer make it simple to discharge credit card debt, so you can't simply run up a massive tab on credit cards and then just walk away from them anymore.  That used to be the case, but that particular loophole no longer exists the way it once did. Further, you could face fraud charges if it can be proven you acted deliberately with the intent to commit fraud.   Finally, you won't be able to rack up a ton of new cards as quickly as you might think, so your ability to amass enough to make your plan worth the risk is not as great as you seem to believe. As a closing note, don't do it.  All you do is make it more expensive for the rest of us to carry credit cards.  After all, the banks aren't going to eat the losses.  They'll just pass them along in the form of higher fees and rates to the rest of us.
As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20 yr+ contracts/landlord activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close (and they are here), it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds.
Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.
The only reason they didn't go bankrupt 20 years ago is because old people shop there. No joke, 50+ year olds have a mysterious allegiance to Sears where price etc. doesn't matter to them, they shop there anyway.  As soon as all the oldies die off, Sears will too.
Mismanaged companies are a commodity that can be turned into profitable companies.  Companies like Bain invest in companies that would probably go bankrupt otherwise, shuffle things around (usually firing some people, sometimes a lot), and sell the company to someone now that it's profitable at an exorbitant rate.  I don't like many investors outsource to China, but when a private equity firm gets involved with your company, those jobs don't have long to begin with.
Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance.   I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me.   Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business.   The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal.   It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time.   Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make.   My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner.   Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing.
Don't waste your time threatening legal action or screwing around with certified mail. If they're contacting your employer to garnish your wages they probably already have a summary judgment against you for failing to appear at a court date you didn't know about.  Your employer might have had your back but these guys will continue to try to locate your assets and attempt garnishment until someone does accept their claim and hands over your bank account.  Contact a bankruptcy attorney immediately (they are most experienced with dealing with debt collectors and related issues). Consultations are generally free.
In the economic cycle we are are going through the crashing of the monoliths - corporate and political - mass extinction events . As far as investment is concerned where the money can be made is with the small to medium sized businesses - progressive evolution - these will pick up the business from the crashed corporates .
This is exactly what happened with Enron.  The 401k was mostly invested in company stock, so when the company went bankrupt the employees lost both their jobs and savings.  The plan administrator was also faulted by the government for continuing to allow new purchases of stock even as the stock price (and hence the perceived fortunes of the company) tumbled.  http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/401k/q_retire_enron_re/  http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/011802.asp
A single corporation known for their mistreatment of employees and price/sale scamming taking over markets nationwide is bad for the majority of people. Sure they've provided consumers with a decent and innovative service, but I can't imagine an employer that treats the majority of their staff badly and lies to their customers will have much in the way of altruistic ideals.