Az bankruptcy exemptions

AZBankruptcyLawyer

2024.05.07 23:47 myazlawyers1 AZBankruptcyLawyer

Welcome to the AZ Bankruptcy Lawyers community, where you can ask any questions or concerns related to Bankruptcy Law. This community is moderated by My AZ Lawyers, a law firm with over 20 years of experience in Arizona advocating for the rights of our plaintiffs in areas such as Chapter 13 and 7 Bankruptcy, File Bankruptcy, Personal Bankruptcy, as well as Criminal Law and Personal Injury.

[link]

2024.05.19 08:10 nomorelandfills California rescuers clamoring for adoption of AB 2265, Animal Shelter Transparency Act cheerfully agree to remove the bit about mandatory spay/neuter before a dog or cat is released to foster. Also, the law is another gateway for release of dangerous dogs.

https://preview.redd.it/8wd5vanfrb1d1.png?width=536&format=png&auto=webp&s=4348ee55b7aa2fd3a7d70737d11ffd1979b19f61
To be honest, I didn't read the dangerous dog part as thoroughly as I should. I think I may be somewhat burnt out on the recklessness and coldness shown by rescuers to others in their willingness to prioritize dangerous or marginal ownerless dogs over beloved pets and over people.
The spay/neuter part, that just galls me. It should gall anyone. This crisis, this hellscape of pit bull overpopulation that exists clearly calls for sterilization of any shelter dog in California. Shrugging off that as a lesser priority than rehoming existing dogs blows the whole deal. Any animal rescue plan that removes, downgrades or fails to prioritize spay/neuter for pit bulls is worthless. It's just a smokescreen, a way to play with puppies and posture as saviors without doing anything to improve the situation. Status quo, nothing to see here, #adoptdontshop.
https://preview.redd.it/if3jg07kpb1d1.png?width=873&format=png&auto=webp&s=bde9e6f11f3311da914d8c76a66d3907e0118374
SUMMARY: Under existing law, it is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home, as provided.
This bill declares it the policy of the state that no animal be euthanized by a public animal control agency, shelter, or a private entity that contracts with a public animal control agency or shelter for animal care and control services (collectively, “eligible agency”). This bill requires an eligible agency to post, 24 to 72 hours before a scheduled euthanasia of a dog or cat, a daily list of any cat or dog scheduled for euthanasia on its public website or social media page and to post a physical notice on the kennel of a dog or cat scheduled to be euthanized.
This bill requires a public animal control agency or shelter that seeks to adopt a policy, practice, or protocol that may conflict with Hayden’s Law to give notice regarding the policy, practice, or protocol, as specified, and requires the city or county to schedule a public hearing regarding the policy, practice, or protocol.
https://preview.redd.it/r6ett982nb1d1.png?width=701&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a4b03df0544234fd1c1a32dc1ad2396314d7a75
And the sheer chutzpah of this
https://preview.redd.it/6jzq88epob1d1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=01830f3ea95e94084d4bd927d96ba33fc7732b24
Rescuers - we will advocate for violent dogs and fund their owners' fights to keep them from being designated dangerous and harass communities into being extremely afraid of even starting a dangerous dog investigation.
Also rescuers - our new legislation to require more marketing of unadoptable dogs won't include dangerous dogs! Silly! There's no risk to the public!
Although I will say I had no idea that rescuers knew of the existence of the word 'transparency' so good for them. Perhaps this knowledge could be turned inward sometimes?
The CityWatch article
ANIMAL WATCH - An increasing number of reported vicious and fatal dog attacks across California, as reported by the L.A. Times—and worldwide—are ignored by AB 2265 (2024) authored by Assembly Member Kevin McCarthy and introduced in the CA Assembly—and, instead, it prohibits euthanasia of any dangerous animals, including dogs impounded in shelters for violent behavior.
AB 2265, (which has so far been amended twice, the latest change being when it was introduced in the Assembly on 3/18/2024) wants California legislators to assure that NO dog (or other aggressive animal) in a shelter can be euthanized, other than if it is irremediably suffering, regardless of its violent or even deadly behavioral history. However, it is the goal and purpose of shelters to place as many animals as possible directly into homes with families.
This bill went far beyond the purpose of the 1998 Hayden bill which had the intent to restrict euthanasia of healthy and adoptable animals.
No one with knowledge of the devastating outcome of attacks by currently popular Pit Bulls, XL and XXL Bullys, now banned in the UK, Wales, Scotland and India, along with other aggressive breeds, nor anyone who has been the victim of any vicious dog attack, could plausibly agree that this risk should be encouraged or can be afforded by the State of California or any governmental jurisdiction.
So far, it appears other legislators are skeptical of this bill. The only positive change with which some CA animal control agencies and legislators have expressed mutual agreement is the increase in spay/neuter deposits for dogs and cats being raised to $200 to match the much higher rates for surgical sterilization in today’s economy.
A CLOSER LOOK AT AB 2265
In the past few weeks we have seen countries such as England, Wales, Scotland and India joining those which ban Pit Bull, XL and XXL Bullys and other dangerous dogs in order to stop the trafficking of dangerous breeds, provide safety for communities and stop the horrific attacks and deaths of innocent children and adults whose lives are ended by other people’s “protection dogs” or “rescued” pets with a known history of violent behavior.
AB 2265 – A RISK CALIFORNIA CANNOT TAKE
There is value in telling the truth about dog behavior and the greatest is in public and personal safety. What weird whim—other than personal aggrandizement or a strong campaign supporter—would cause Senator McCarthy to encourage ignoring violent past history and risk human and animal lives on a gamble that a dog with a known history of unprovoked aggression will suddenly act differently?
If we want canines to continue to be known as man’s (or woman’s) best friends, we need—just as we do with humans—to assure they have earned that trust by not misusing their innate strength and survival skills to harm those who trust and love them.
CHANGING THE STATE’S EUTHANASIA GOAL
This bill, AB 2265, introduced on February 8, 2024, drastically changes the State’s animal shelter euthanasia goal—from ending euthanasia of adoptable animals to ending euthanasia of any animal. That includes vicious dogs, wild and/or dangerous animals, prohibited animals and regulated animals.
This would create chaotic danger for adopters and pet owners and innocent residents/neighbors throughout California, while ALSO negatively and disastrously affecting the insurance and veterinary industries, according to experts.
The only exceptions in the bill that allow a dangerous animal to be euthanized are very narrow categories for medical and behavior issues:
1) those that are irremediably suffering, which is defined as those for which “severe, unremitting physical pain” cannot be relieved by any medical means without regard to cost or local availability of that level of care; and
2) Those that have been declared “vicious” under the State’s regulatory scheme, which few agencies use, and which assumes that a hearing was held after an owner contested that declaration.
According to Fast Track Democracy, “Existing law prohibits animals that are irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury from being held for owner redemption or adoption. This bill would instead declare it the policy of the state that no animal be euthanized by a public animal control agency or shelter or a private entity that contracts with a public animal control agency or shelter for animal care and control services, except as provided.”
“Existing law prohibits a stray dog or cat impounded by a public or private shelter from being euthanized before 6 business days after the stray dog or cat is impounded, not including the day of impoundment, and requires that the stray dog or cat, except those irremediably suffering, be released to a nonprofit animal rescue or adoption organization before the scheduled euthanasia of the stray dog or cat if requested by the organization, as specified.” The analysis summarizes the Bill (see Fast Track Democracy).
Existing law prohibits a stray dog or cat impounded by a public or private shelter from being euthanized before 6 business days after the stray dog or cat is impounded, not including the day of impoundment, and requires that the stray dog or cat, except those irremediably suffering, be released to a nonprofit animal rescue or adoption organization before the scheduled euthanasia of the stray dog or cat if requested by the organization, as specified.
WARNINGS ABOUT THIS ‘NO KILL’ PLAN FOR DANGEROUS DOGS
A California animal-control specialist offered the following thoughts based on his personal and professional experience.
(The following is not to be taken as legal advice, but merely as guidance in further considering some issues that appear to not have been considered in pursuing these severe changes to animal sheltering under existing California laws and practices.)
“This Bill would absolutely eviscerate Food and Agricultural Code Section 31683, which allows counties and cities to have their own regulatory process for dangerous dogs, and it would force everyone to use the very-flawed State process.”
AND he summarized that:

This bill eliminates the limitation by the 1998 Hayden-Bill mandate and requires shelters to advertise for release even those dogs that have mauled or killed a person, and forces animal control agencies (government and humane societies with animal control contracts) to announce the pending euthanasia of any of these dogs to “rescues,” so they can take them, often placing them in unsuspecting homes.
Even if the bill does not require that owner-relinquished dogs that are too vicious for placement even with a rescue be released to anyone who asks for it, the mere requirement that they be advertised creates unnecessary conflict and invites protest and even litigation over the decision not to release them.
What is a “qualified” nonprofit animal rescue or adoption organization? The term “qualified” is not defined in the bill. In light of an appellate court interpretation of the Hayden mandate to release stray dogs facing euthanasia to a “qualified” rescue, it is vital to have that defined. If “qualified” means any corporation that has obtained its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status—which is what many will assume—then animal control will have no way to ensure that the most vicious dogs are not placed in “foster” in unsuspecting neighborhoods by people who have no idea how dangerous they are.
Why must it be a nonprofit organization? This bill defines an animal rescue organization to include for-profit corporations. So why are they excluded from this Bill? A nonprofit organization can pay a high number of “employees” very exorbitant salaries. A nonprofit business model is no guarantee that more of the organization’s budget will go to help animals than other business models.
This Bill targets only municipal shelters and humane societies that have government contracts to provide animal control services. Those are the only organizations that cannot fully control their intake, and on which there are mandates to admit animals. They are the very organizations that most need the ability to engage in euthanasia for legitimate health and safety reasons, and for which the greatest levels of leniency and understanding are justified. Yet, any other organization can euthanize healthy, adoptable animals with impunity.

Although there are many other factors considered in the analysis, this article is intended merely to present some of the dangers of creating laws and policies at any legislative level without having a thorough analysis and discussion with leaders in the field of animal control and sheltering. There is information at the end of this article if anyone wishes to read more of this analysis.
FUNDRAISING – THE POWER OF THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR
There is no better way to reach the wallets of animal lovers than through their heart strings, and sadly millions of dollars are going into pockets of executives in organizations that do not directly care for or protect animals and, of course, nothing speaks louder than donations at the lobbying and legislative level.
But, the needs of homeless animals should not be creating slush funds for campaigns nor playing on the emotions of those who are continually confronted by TV commercials and mailers, saying that just a few more dollars will save them all.
There are also human lives and safety to be considered and this is a primary responsibility of animal shelters and humane societies. It is important that they are asked what will help them do this thankless and seemingly hopeless job.
Pets are too often obtained as a short-term experience with little commitment and then abandoned within or outside these facilities that do not benefit from the money that is raised by large organizations or politicians ostensibly to help them.
Instead, these promises set unreachable goals and promote “feel-good” programs that overburden their staffing and emotions, without asking what they need to do this very difficult job from a realistic perspective.
THE BEST INDICATOR OF AN ANIMAL’S FUTURE BEHAVIOR IS ITS PAST
Not all animals are adoptable, nor should they be placed in homes where they are likely to harm, or be harmed because certain behavior is endemic to the breed. The AKC thrives on the fact that bloodlines of dogs determine or influence their predictable behavior.
Why is it this is so clear that it causes millions of people to buy purebreds for certain reasons; yet, animal shelters are expected to take in dogs with documented histories of anti-social behavior and attacks and rehome them with promises they will be “good family members” just to keep them alive?
LISTEN BEFORE VOTING, SACRAMENTO
Legislators need to listen to experts in animal control—not self-appointed voices for animals—many of whom have never worked in a shelter, before even considering new legislation.
They also need to ask their own community, “Do you feel safe from dog attacks? And/or “have you been a victim of an attack or live in fear of neighborhood animals?” They may be surprised at the number of injuries that have been suffered but didn’t make the press and how many victims may have permanent, life-limiting, disabilities for which they were never compensated.
Assembly Member McCarthy needs to walk through animal shelters in his district and ask those who work there or have been long-term volunteers, and those who take the responsibility for determining policies and the endless, sad challenges of management, “what will help you help them?”
DON’T WAIT FOR AN IRREVERSIBLE TRAGEDY
California has been very liberal (or very foolish) in allowing dogs known to have a history of aggression to be removed from shelters for adoption, but lawsuits and tragic, injuries or deaths of innocent victims have imposed limitations as to what can be tolerated philosophically and financially.
The safety of the dog itself must also be a consideration. People understandably react violently to dog attacks, using any weapon to inflict sufficient injury to stop the dog and save their own or another’s life.
Euthanasia can be the most humane option when it is indicated or determined that the animal poses a consistent threat to humans or animals in general, or poses a recurrent uncontrollable risk to the public’s and its own safety.
(Author’s note: If anyone would like to see more of the informal critique of the proposed CA law AB 2265, quoted in part in this article, you can contact me through the editor of CityWatchLA: ([jim@citywatchla.com](mailto:jim@citywatchla.com).)
(Phyllis M. Daugherty is a former Los Angeles City employee, an animal activist and a contributor to CityWatch.

submitted by nomorelandfills to PetRescueExposed [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 17:48 VeganChristNoFap 🚀 FFIE: The Next GME 2.0 - A Movement for the People! 🚀

Hey everyone,
It's time to make a stand and seize an incredible opportunity with FFIE. Just like the epic rise of GME, FFIE is poised to be the next big squeeze, and here’s why you should be fired up and ready to act.
🔍 The Facts:

35 MILLION shares are currently LOANED out. This means there’s a massive short interest.
Shorts still have NOT covered. They are sitting on unrealized gains, but those gains can turn into devastating losses if we unite.
Loan = Interest. Shorts are paying hefty interest rates on their borrowed shares.
Interest = Money. The longer they hold, the more they bleed money.
Money = HUGE Loss. The potential for a massive short squeeze is real and within our reach.
58,000 calls were in the money on Friday. When exercised, this could result in buying 58 million shares, further increasing the pressure on shorts.

🌐 The Tactics Against Us:

They are spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).
They are attempting to pump and dump to shake weak hands.
They are even trying to silence us by removing forums and spreading misinformation.

💡 The Reality:

Shorts are banking on FFIE filing for bankruptcy to lock in their gains.
Until they cover or the company folds, their gains are just on paper.
We have the power to stop FFIE from filing for bankruptcy by buying and holding.

✊ Our Mission:
We’ve seen it with GME, and we can do it again. This is more than just a stock; it’s a movement. By buying and holding FFIE, we force the shorts into a position where they must cover, triggering a massive price surge.
📅 Key Dates:

Tuesday, May 28th, 2024: Earnings webcast scheduled.
June 25th, 2024: FFIE needs to reach a minimum bid price of $1 for ten consecutive trading days to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A).

📅 Action Plan:

Buy and Hold: Every share we buy and hold increases the pressure on shorts.
Stay Informed: Don’t fall for scare tactics and misinformation.
Spread the Word: Rally others to join the movement.

Additionally, SSR (Short Sale Restriction) is ON Monday, which will limit some shorting. However, we know they might use Short Exempt to short anyway.
Let’s make history again. This is our chance to turn the tables and achieve something monumental. Let’s turn FFIE into the next GME and watch as the shorts scramble to cover.
💥 M*onday is our day. Buy, Hold, and watch the magic happen. *💥
Together, we are unstoppable. Let’s make FFIE soar!
🚀 #*FFIE2TheMoon *🚀

submitted by VeganChristNoFap to FFIE [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 05:34 EatingBuddha3 Reducing Equity in Vehicle CH7

I am considering filing Chapter 7 in PA USA on about $50k in unsecured debt (half credit cards, half personal loan). I will soon be receiving a divorce settlement that will be about half of that amount in cash and planned to use it to do a lease buyout on my vehicle which has a residual of about $20k. Since the vehicle has low miles and is in good condition, I assume it will exceed the near $20k wildcard plus vehicle exemption by a few to five thousand dollars. If I did the lease buyout as a finance deal with let's say $15k down (thus owing $8k-$10k after tax/title) and spent the remaining cash paying some moving expenses, prepaying rent, paying my divorce and bankruptcy attorneys, etc. does that seem like it would work? I'd really like to keep this car and think I could qualify for the note with that much down, would hate to buy it out just to have it sold... What do you think? Anyone have any experience with this kind of thing? Thank you....

submitted by EatingBuddha3 to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.17 21:51 Front-Selection9109 My joint car loan was discharged, but what happens to my cosigner, can he refinance our car even though it was discharged

I filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It was discharged and finalized, my car was exempted. The problem now is that the lender is no longer reporting the payments on my account or my cosigner credit. We got this car in hopes of giving my husband credit history, and he wants to refinance the car and put it in his name. Is this at all possible?

submitted by Front-Selection9109 to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.17 04:15 CigarSmoker_M4 I am here az a third party intervener in dat matter appearing az authorized representative fo my client. I accept fo value and return for value and make my exemption available fo discharge of all obligationz an chargez connectid wid dis case. I do not dispute any of da fax in da charging instrumentz

I am here az a third party intervener in dat matter appearing az authorized representative fo my client. I accept fo value and return for value and make my exemption available fo discharge of all obligationz an chargez connectid wid dis case. I do not dispute any of da fax in da charging instrumentz

submitted by CigarSmoker_M4 to DarrellBrooksJr [link] [comments]

2024.05.17 01:01 DiamondFnDano My DISCHARGE Story. This is not legal advice

FLORIDA USA. Filed 02/20/24 CHAP7 Discharged today, $98,000.
Last August, I had a great score and suddenly it starting going down for no apparent reason. I had never missed a payment or been late ever in 25 years. C,h,a,s,e shrank the credit limits on my 2 accounts I had with them 11,000 went to 1200; 13000 was reduced to 500. I paid any remaining balance in an attempt to save my profile. it was too late and this reduction of credit line impacted my score even more. Like an avalanche, other creditors began shrinking and closing accounts. One financial person suggested getting a home equity loan to zero out my revolving credit accounts. I was about to do that when I was Laid off at the first of the year. I therefore was not qualified to take out a home equity loan. Meanwhile my score plummeted in to 590. Still never missing a single payment. I still can find no explanation for any of the.reductions. I was not maxed out. I still had available credit over 150K. Companies could not or would not explain their action. My credit profile was ruined. Combine that with the Lay off. Bankruptcy Chap 13 became an idea. I was reluctant at first, however, I was reminded of how my situation had been compounded because of creditors actions and proceeded. However, Chap 13 turned out be wrong as I was a good fit for CHAP7 I live in FLORIDA, where the exemption on a homestead has no limit. Fortunately, I had not been able to qualify for that equity loan. I have 100% equity in a 475,000 house that was fully exempt. I was able to keep everything including a retirement savings account. The only exception a small tax return, which I surrendered. I was able to keep 2 non-financed vehicles : one being a 1985 Lincoln Towncar. Several attorneys said that I would likely not be able to keep this vehicle. Although my attorney was willing to give it a try.
Thank you to A-L-A-N S-H-O-R-E for pointing out that C-A-R M-A-X would give me an offer to purchase my car to establish value.
the a/c wasnt working so they gave it the lowest value offer of 1500. I am so glad to not have to go purchase a vehicle right after this. Im looking forward to staying at zero payments.
My Score was 760 last may, plummeted to 560 in December, filed in Feb 24 my score increase immediately to 590. after the 341 meeting my score increased to 680. it has been creeping upward since then.
I called up C.a.p.i.t.a.l.O.n.e. Venture which I had a zero balance account prior to the filing. The representative explained to me that they could not reopen my account, I needed to reapply I authorized them to process the application. It was subsequently approved for 7500. Basically, solving my only real concern of needing a card for travel, hotel, car rental as I begin working once again.
When I think about how this turned out, I cannot help but be pleased. It was an unusual case and I did honestly worry about the outcome. Technically, my net worth increased in bankruptcy additionally my score that was lowering for whatever reason is already now increasing. I was able to accept a much simpler job working less hours to cover my expenses.I have been rescued from these increasing interest rates. It is such a relief. NOT LEGAL ADVICE

submitted by DiamondFnDano to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.16 03:42 ExternalKey5278 In desperate need of bankruptcy advice please...

Hello all,
I am considering bankruptcy after finding myself drowning in debt. Some background -- I have about $55,000 in debt that has built up over the last decade and a half (all of it is unsecured debt - various credit cards and 3 personal loans), am located in Georgia, and currently pay anywhere from $1900-2000 a month on all of my minimum payments against a monthly income of ~$2200 after taxes and deductions. The payments keep going up month to month and frankly I'm just at a breaking point as it has drastically affected my mental health to the point of not so good thoughts. I have never missed a payment due to auto-pay but am afraid that may change in the near future.
I am considering both chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy options, however my head is full of anxiety because I do not know where to even start.
A few specific questions about the bankruptcy process:

Can I claim the unused portion of the homestead exemption (or even just the homestead exemption itself) even if I do not own a home? I live with family, however I pay rent monthly to them. If I were able to do so, it may be the best option as it would cover all property. I have lived there forever (severe mental health issues / some disabilities).
What might the average chapter 13 bankruptcy payment look like per month for someone in my financial situation?
What would be the average going rate for a reputable/knowledgeable bankruptcy attorney?

Thanks.

submitted by ExternalKey5278 to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.15 18:08 job-posts-usa-visa 05.15-2 Jobs with USA visa sponsorship

🌎 Please visit our new unique job portal that has 7000+ positions with USA visa sponsorship! move2usajobs .com. Free trial available!
🙏🙏🙏 PLEASE READ OUR FAQ HERE 🙏🙏🙏 lnkd .in/dSp6jC52
If you find the post useful, kindly like&share! The first website in the industry with real USA jobs for immigrants and foreigners! 👩❤️👨
⚡️NEW! H-1B (CAP and Exempt, Sponsors), J-1 (Internship, Traineeship, Work and Travel, Teaching), Studying in USA (Including Scholarships), CPT and OPT Sponsors, J-2, O-1, B-1/B-2, EB-5, EB-2, EB-3! About 3k$. If you are interested, please check lnkd .in/d65MsiuA
✈️ Try our Visa Getter, increase your chances to immigrate to the USA by 50% lnkd .in/d2vvukps
🌐 New free option - check your eligibility for different USA work visas here relocate2america .com
⚖️ Our legal adviser lnkd .in/dmZE8vgk
#hiring #usajobs #visasponsorship #jobs #jobsearch #findjob #career #applynow #ilovemyjob #usa #us #usjob #workinus #unitedstates #h1b #h2b #h2a #eb3 #greencard #international #abroad
Please delete spaces in the links to access the application pages

Irrigators

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$16.32 per hour
Roll, AZ
sbreschini@amigofarms .com

MarTech Technical Lead

Visa sponsorship
Charlotte, NC
https:// goo .su/ nqEY

Construction Laborers

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$25.90 per hour
Shawano, WI
gloria@signet .us

Software Engineer - Microsoft Dynamics 365 (F&O)

Visa sponsorship
East Moline, IL
https:// goo .su/ BiV7w

Range Goatherder

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$1,986.76 per month
Marfa, TX
wbklein@bigbend .net

Nurse Practitione Physician Assistant

Visa sponsorship
Visalia, CA
https:// goo .su/ SROmkYI

Fish Roe Processor

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$17.15 per hour
JUNEAU, AK
tiffany@alaskaglacierseafoods .com
📺 Do you have a YouTube or TikTok channel or a blog? Mention us and earn! Our affiliate program: nkd .in/dBgbkvWW
🏤 Our telegram channel lnkd .in/gAb3HbTz
📲 Please contact us through the online chat on our website
👨💻For international developers and engineers with 3+ years of experience - developer2usa .com
🥖Get sponsored for access to the job portal (we provide one random person with yearly access when a yearly plan is purchased) lnkd .in/dtBrbTsi
When you buy a yearly plan, you sponsor one person in need for yearly access to our job portal!
🎒Our US Work Visa courses lnkd .in/dtnMz2mU
🎰 US Embassy Slots Booking lnkd .in/dFp2rRyp
Please help us grow, share this post with your auditory or simply like it!🙏 move2usajobs .com

submitted by job-posts-usa-visa to jobsUSAimmigration [link] [comments]

2024.05.15 15:08 WhatCanIMakeToday Operational Efficiency Shares: Rehypothecating 🐇🐇🐇🐇 And Breaking Free Of Chains [WalkThrough] (4/n)

From the prior DD in this series [1], we know that ComputerShare can “give” the DTC registered DSPP shares to hold onto for operational efficiency which are then “given back” as shares beneficially owned “for the benefit of” (“FBO”) DSPP Plan Participants at ComputerShare, as illustrated in this diagram:
From The Prerequisite DD
It’s time to explore what “operational efficiency” benefits may be gained by DSPP shares going around this roundabout. At first glance, shares are basically just going in a big circle from DSPP Plan Participants with registered ownership DSPP shares at ComputerShare heading to the DTC, who hands shares to ComputerShare’s broker who maintains those shares for the benefit of ComputerShare who holds those shares for the benefit of Plan Participants. While I think it’s unlikely that shares just go around in a big fat circle for no reason, I do remember people getting onto flights to literally go nowhere a few years ago [CNN, NYT]; so maybe these operational efficiency shares simply miss hanging out at the DTC?
Let’s look more closely… While title is held by a registered DSPP Plan Participant, ComputerShare is giving the DTC possession [1] of registered DSPP shares to the DTC to hold for operational efficiency which then ultimately end back in the possession of ComputerShare’s broker (who isn’t lending out shares) for the benefit of ComputerShare for the benefit of Plan Participants. If we treat the DTC’s operations as a big black box, we see registered shares going into the DTC black box and beneficially owned shares coming out of the black box to ComputerShare for Plan Participants.
DTCC Black Box: Inputs vs Outputs
Investopedia says that shareholders have rights, with a list of 6 main rights including:

Voting power on major issues.
Ownership in a portion of the company.
The right to transfer ownership.
Entitlement to dividends.
Opportunity to inspect corporate books and records.
The right to sue for wrongful acts.

By contrast, beneficial owners only need to have or share 2 of those rights (bolded) according to the definition of beneficial owner in Rule 13d-3: the power to vote and the power to dispose of the security (e.g., sell).

§ 240.13d-3 Determination of beneficial owner.
(a) For the purposes of sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Act a beneficial owner of a security includes any person who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise has or shares:
(1) Voting power which includes the power to vote, or to direct the voting of, such security; and/or,
(2) Investment power which includes the power to dispose, or to direct the disposition of, such security.

ComputerShare basically confirms this list (except for the right to sue as that’s probably not one their issuer customers would emphasize) and adds that beneficially held shares may be lent by brokers generally (but not by ComputerShare’s broker).
Registered Shareholder Rights vs Beneficial Owner Rights
Maybe you’ve had different experiences from me, but I’ve never known Wall St to deliver more than the bare minimum they’re contractually obligated to. Which means the DTC black box is very likely watering down shareholder rights from the 6 that go in down to the 2 which come out. (And yet, we’re supposed to believe that all shares are equal. 🙄)
Dividends (#4 on the list) [2] may be the clearest example of a watered down shareholder right. Registered shareholders have the right “to directly receive share dividends” [CS FAQ] which means if a company (e.g., GameStop or OverStock) issues a dividend, registered shareholders have the right to directly receive the dividend as issued. If the company issues a crypto dividend (as OverStock tried to do), registered shareholders have the right to directly receive the issued crypto dividend. Beneficial shareholders would get an issued dividend, if available, or a cash equivalent if not. Historically, stock and other dividends to beneficial shareholders could easily be delivered as a cash equivalent, a watered down form. Crypto dividends don’t scale well with shorts (both naked and legal via, for example, share lending and borrowing) because crypto tokens are unique which makes it abundantly clear why a crypto dividend was nixed for a heavily shorted idiosyncratic stock like GameStop; especially given GameStop’s particularly active shareholders.
Ownership (#2 on the list) may be the second clearest example of a watered down shareholder right as more security interests to shares exist in the DTC’s beneficial ownership system than there are shares; with the SEC saying beneficial shares get a pro rata interest in the securities of that issue held by DTC. [See End Game Part Deux: Problems at the DTCC plus The Bigger Picture, particularly the section “The Pie Is Shrinking: Get Out (And DRS) While You Can”]
Voting (#1 on the list) is also an example watered down shareholder right; this one having a long history on this sub with, for example, BroadRidge tossing 7B votes and bragging about it. (Beneficial owners only need to get shared voting rights per Rule 13d-3 above so those 7B “shared” votes just lost out to who they shared with.) Unlike other beneficially held shares, voting rights for DSPP shares are not watered down as ComputerShare sends registered holders their voting forms.

Operational Efficiency Shares, Whatcha Doing In There?

A big black box is a pretty good description of the DTC which does not want us to know the ins and outs of what’s going on. Black holes are a pretty good example of a big black box and, most importantly, we know a lot about black holes even though they can’t be directly observed. Just as we learned about black holes without direct observation, we can similarly learn a lot about the Operational Efficiency shares even though we can’t directly observe them in the DTC habitat.
Even though we can’t look inside the DTC’s big black box, it turns out we don’t really have to in order to identify some benefits from these operational efficiency shares taking their roundabout trip to nowhere.
Locates A few commenters have suggested that OE shares could be used for locates so I’ll address this first. Possible, yes. But I don’t view this as the most interesting use for OE shares. Brokers are supposed to “locate” securities available for borrowing before short selling. [Wikipedia)] Basically, before selling short a broker is supposed to find a source to borrow. The “locate” requirement does NOT require the security to be borrowed before short selling which can result in a legal naked short.
You may be wondering why I don’t view “locates” as particularly interesting for OE shares if short sellers need to locate shares to borrow before shorting. Well, market makers are also exempt from this requirement as long as they’re market making. 🙄 On top of the market maker exemption, remember House Of Cards? In House Of Cards 3 [SuperStonk], we learned about the now 🤦‍♂️ hilarious F**3 key **- yeah, the one on a keyboard. Brokers like Goldman found the locate requirement simply too much work so they would press the F3 key and their system would auto-approve the locate requirement based only on the number of shares available to borrow at the beginning of the day; regardless of whether those shares were still available to borrow or not.
House Of Cards 3
Meaning as long as there were some shares available to borrow at the beginning of the day for their share copying system, brokers could just smash the F3 key to make as many copies of shares as they need. Even if only 1 share was available to borrow at the beginning of the day, a broker could simply smash the F3 key 100 times to approve the locate requirement for 100 shares.
So while OE shares could be used for locates, they wouldn’t need many shares each day to make an unlimited number of copies - even just 1 is enough.
Lending shares on the other hand…
Rehypothecation Rehypothecation is the reuse of customer collateral for lending. Per a 2010 IMF Working Paper, The (sizable) Role of Rehypothecation in the Shadow Banking System,

Rehypothecation occurs when the collateral posted by a prime brokerage client (e.g., hedge fund) to its prime broker is used as collateral also by the prime broker for its own purposes.

This IMF paper defined a “churning factor” to measure how many times an asset may be reused; and then estimated a churning factor of 4 noting that it could be higher because international banks (e.g., HSBC and Nomura) were not sampled. This IMF paper found a single asset may be lent and borrowed 4 times, or more; an average which could be higher globally.
https://preview.redd.it/ymr3j03zri0d1.png?width=795&format=png&auto=webp&s=1555314cefd520658a4f78dc4745867063e3bf34
Churn Factor Could Be Higher Globally
How much higher? We may have seen a churn factor as high as 10 for a less idiosyncratic meme stock per my prior post, Estimating Excess GME Share Liquidity From Borrow Data & Churn Factor. Presumably, the idiosyncratic meme stock would have a higher churn factor (but not that important for this post).
More recently (2018), the Federal Reserve published this Fed Note on The Ins and Outs of Collateral Re-use studying how often collateral is reused (i.e., rehypothecated) for Treasury & non-Treasury securities [3] with a beautiful figure illustrating how “for any given moment in time, one security can be attributed to multiple financial transactions” where a share could be posted multiple times through Security Financing Transactions (SFTs) and sold short. [4] Sounds familiar, right?
https://preview.redd.it/zsztmji4si0d1.png?width=1530&format=png&auto=webp&s=f222dfe50929f668af8f8f0b39514a7d862db9c9
Figure 6c of this Fed Note shows a Collateral Multiplier over time illustrating how “PDs [Primary Dealers] currently re-use about three times as many securities as they own for non-Treasury collateral and seven times as many securities as they own for U.S. Treasury securities”.
AKA \"Money Multiplier\"
The Fed Note describes their Collateral Multiplier as a “money multiplier” (Seriously, I couldn’t have made this up in a million years.),

In a sense, our Collateral Multiplier is akin to a "money multiplier," as it compares private liabilities created by a firm with the amount of specific assets held to create those liabilities. [The Ins and Outs of Collateral Re-use]

And, of course, the Collateral Multiplier aka “money multiplier” ratio goes up when there’s less collateral available and down when there’s more collateral available. (Can I get one of these multipliers?)

Intuitively, we expect the ratio to increase when collateral is scarce and to decrease when collateral is more abundant.

Which means Primary Dealers [Wikipedia has a list of familiar names including Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, BofA, Citigroup, TD, UBS, and Wells Fargo; amongst others] can simply kick securities around a few extra times (e.g., with SFTs and short sells) to effectively multiply the amount of money and/or collateral they have any time they need it. (Within limits, I hope…)
Thus, rehypothecation is a very interesting use of Operational Efficiency shares from ComputerShare as various primary dealers can simply “multiply” the number of shares they have – a concept that we’re already quite familiar with. As rehypothecation, short sells, and securities financing transactions are all perfectly legal, rehypothecating more GameStop shares provided to the DTC via operational efficiency satisfies Ground Rule #2 [defined in (1/n) in this series],

All parties involved are all generally attempting to operate within the bounds of the laws and regulations wherever possible. (I know we often scream “crime”, but why break a law when money can simply [re]write laws to make activities legal. Regulatory failure is the reason why something that should be criminal, isn’t. And regulatory failure happens when armies of lawyers are paid to create and exploit loopholes so that actions which should be criminal, are instead legal.)

We can update our conceptual model to include rehypothecation to more clearly illustrate how Operational Efficiency shares held in the DTC can be rehypothecated (e.g., with SFTs and short sells) until a watered down share is delivered to ComputerShare’s broker to hold FBO ComputerShare, who holds the watered down share FBO DSPP Plan Participants.
https://preview.redd.it/bt3gnx99si0d1.png?width=4764&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b0b72b935f740e8a3036f88e1a4e1dfb57dd46c
You might notice from this illustration that ComputerShare has been telling the truth satisfying Ground Rule #1 [defined in (1/n) in this series]. Neither ComputerShare’s nor their broker lend or need to lend shares. All the rehypothecation happens “upstream” amongst other DTCC and NSCC Participants until shares are finally delivered to ComputerShare’s broker at the end of the “Churn Chain”. ComputerShare has made no representations about what the DTC can or can not do with the shares in their possession. And, realistically, ComputerShare is in no position to make any representations about what happens within the DTCC system – ComputerShare is only responsible for themselves and, to some extent, their broker.
The Fed Note and IMF paper found assets may be churned and reused 3-4 times (overall market average) which means the end of the chain is typically around D3 or D4. (If my prior DD estimates are correct, there were signs a less idiosyncratic meme stock may be churned up to 10 times ending the chain at D10 which suggests a potentially longer chain for GME, the idiosyncratic meme stock.) If there is no collateral reuse for an asset, the chain would have zero length meaning Operational Efficiency shares go straight from the DTC directly to ComputerShare’s broker. (Programmers almost certainly understand zero length chains very well – go find one if you need an explanation.)
GameStop is idiosyncratic, thus atypical. Per the IMF paper, collateral reuse increases when collateral is scarce and decreases when collateral is abundant (quoted above). If we consider GameStop investors have been direct registering shares (i.e., DRS) and registering shares (e.g., DSPP) thereby removing title and/or possession of shares from the DTC/DTCC/Cede & Co, then GameStop share availability has been becoming more scarce and the “Churn Chain” for GME should be longer than average representing a higher collateral multiplier and churn value.
While we may not know the exact length of the Churn Chain for GameStop shares, we can pretty well surmise that it’s not a zero length Churn Chain where there is no collateral reuse based simply on scarcity. After all, a shortage of available shares is, by definition, required for any short squeeze (including MOASS). Requests by brokers to enable Share Lending [5] is another example indicator that GameStop shares are scarce.
In addition, according to Investopedia [6], “Banks, brokers, or other financial institutions may navigate a liquidity crunch and access capital by rehypothecating client funds” and we’ve seen indicators showing us banks are in deep trouble:

The downside to rehypothecation is the higher leverage increases risks of default and a single collapse can start a chain reaction knocking down others like dominos.

There are also leverage considerations that increase that risk of default. Overleveraged investments often face covenants; when specific conditions are met, trading accounts may receive a margin call or face debt default. As a row of dominos fall after a single collapse, a single margin call may cause other debts to fail their account maintenance requirements, setting off a chain reaction that places the institution at higher risk of overall default. [6]

This risk for rehypothecation sounds exactly like what the Options Clearing Corporation was complaining about to the SEC when the OCC Proposed Reducing Margin Requirements To Prevent A Cascade of Clearing Member Failures [SuperStonk] early 2024. If the OCC can eliminate margin calls, then no dominos get knocked down. (Thankfully, apes have done a phenomenal job in convincing the SEC that this OCC proposal is a very bad idea. Support the SEC’s rejection of this as Simians Smash SEC Rule Proposal To Reduce Margin Requirements To Prevent A Cascade of Clearing Member Failures!)
Most importantly, it may be tough to regain possession of an asset when someone in the rehypothecation chain defaults. Remember from the prior DD the expression about possession: Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Clients must be aware of rehypothecation as it is technically their own assets that have been pledged for someone else's debt. This creates complicated creditor issues where an investors shares may longer be in their possession due to their custodian's default. [6]

We know assets are rehypothecated 3-4 times on average, GameStop shares are scarce, banks are in trouble, stock loan volume is skyhigh, and the risks of rehypothecation are real. So it’s pretty clear that rehypothecation is happening generally with pretty darn good reason to expect GameStop’s Churn Chain is at least of non-zero length (i.e., GameStop stock is being rehypothecated).

Breaking The Chains

While some may like chains and being tied up, I’m not one of those apes. Especially as a Churn Chain waters down my shareholder rights and may make regaining possession of DSPP stock difficult in the event of a cascade of defaults, as warned by the OCC. (If you like chains, feel free to skip this section.)
As it turns out, we don’t need to know exactly how long the Churn Chain is for GameStop stock. Simply knowing a Churn Chain exists with non-zero length means there is a chain. Where there is a chain, it’s possible to break the chain. (Even if you don’t know how much health) your enemy has in a game, you still try to take your enemy out. Right?)
A churn chain that starts from ComputerShare holding DSPP shares in DTC for operational efficiency can easily be broken as “[a]n investor can, at any time, withdraw all or part of their shares in DSPP book-entry form and have them added to their DRS holding”. [ComputerShare] See also [7]. Quite possibly one of the easiest chains in the world to break as the Churn Chain is weak to DRS. Simply DRS the DSPP shares to take away the head of the chain and the rest of the chain falls apart. (And, DRS-ing "street name" shares cuts chains into pieces too!)
One side effect of breaking a Churn Chain is that all shares attributed to transactions in a broken chain (e.g., SFTs and short sells) need to be reallocated to other chains, effectively making other chains longer and increasing the risks from a default.
Analogy: Think of the shares as a deck of cards. If you deal 52 cards to 4 players (A, B, C and D), each player gets 13 cards. Each stack of 13 cards is basically a Churn Chain. But if you take out a stack by removing the bottom card from A and distribute the remaining 12 cards from A to B, C and D then B, C and D each now have 17 cards. If at any given time a card can cause a player to lose the game, it's better to have fewer cards than more. And, the players who get out early won't lose.
Any party in the Churn Chain who defaults will make it hard for the original owner to regain possession. Longer chains include more transactions and more parties so there’s more risk of default on longer chains than shorter chains. Thus we see another vicious cycle setup where incentives are aligned such that DSPP and beneficial shareholders may want to avoid the impending default and rehypothecation risk from their shares being held in DTC. In order to avoid the impending default and rehypothecation risks, shareholders are incentivized to Directly Register shares to ensure having both title and possession. (Shares held in “street name” have little or no protection from rehypothecation risk and simply registering shares in DSPP doesn’t guarantee possession [1].) As with the other vicious cycle, any remaining shareholders in DTC share a shrinking pie of diluted ownership so it is in their best interest to get out and DRS; thereby shrinking the diluted ownership pie even more which is more reason for remaining shareholders to get out. These vicious cycles will eventually leave few, if any, remaining shares at the DTC for beneficial shareholders. Nobody knows what will happen if this ♾️🏊 happens.

Footnotes

[1] If you haven’t already, please read the prerequisite DD in this WalkThrough Series to understand how ownership of property is separated into two concepts: title and possession. [See, e.g., StackExchange] Understanding the differences between title and possession are particularly important here where it’s worth being extra careful identifying how an entity is in control of an asset.

[2] Dividends have been heavily discussed on SuperStonk with many DD posts, including for OverStock and the precedent OverStock set which would have allowed GameStop to issue their own crypto dividend, possibly as an NFT.
[3] Footnote 16 of the Fed Note itemizes various classes of non-Treasury collateral which includes equity which, per Investopedia, is a synonym for stocks.
[4] While short selling is pretty well known, Security Financing Transactions (SFTs) may be more obscure despite discussion of them in the past so here’s some historical SuperStonk links for you (where you may notice some well known OG DD apes):

[5] Simply search SuperStonk for share lending. Don’t make me Google That For You.
[6] https://www.investopedia.com/ REMOVE_FOR_AUTOMOD terms/r REMOVE_FOR_AUTOMOD /rehypothecation.asp
[7] Withdrawing whole DSPP shares into DRS seems to make a lot of sense as doing so guarantees possession. Selling fractionals, less so. If you intend to keep buying, I would think adding to the fractionals to later withdraw whole shares makes more sense. As for the concern about fractionals tainting the whole account, I’ll cover that in another post. For now, you do you.

submitted by WhatCanIMakeToday to Superstonk [link] [comments]

2024.05.15 06:31 Key-Safety-963 Bankruptcy chapter 7

Can i use homestead exemption for prepaid rent payments washington state. I won't be able to afford rent with low income during bankruptcy with only 1k in the bank because I only make about 1k per month and rent is 1.5k. I have 15k I could either prepay rent or wait for it to be spent on rent and then file but then can't pay rent during filing. This is cheapest rent in my area, I have severe OCD (ocd is more than tidiness, it severe disability and limitation) so can't do roommates as disability, so just surviving as long as I can.

submitted by Key-Safety-963 to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.15 03:57 v0x_p0pular Chapter 7 means test -- judgement lien

Hi, this is my third post on the same broad matter and I have benefited from great advice on the prior two posts.
Quick recap: Our household is high income (high six digits) and has no major debt except for a mortgage associated with our home in which we have almost $500k in equity. Live in a state where homestead exemption is, for all practical purposes, non-existent relative to our equity. Credit score is in the 830s.
We are in the early stages of a premises liability trial as defendants where the plaintiffs are going for an 8 digit settlement (which is more than 10-20 times what similar judgements have gone for, but the attorneys representing the other side are strong, and the paintiffs are extremely wealthy -- probably worth 8 digits already).
Our assets including our home equity would be considerably less than $1M though we have a healthy amount in 401ks and 529s -- which we have checked with 2 bankruptcy law firms on and confirmed -- that can't be touched.
I recently learned that the means test for chapter 7, which is typically not applicable to households like ours, may not be required in cases where the debt is not consumer debt. If this is the case, we would greatly benefit from holding on to our high paying jobs ideally through and after our Chapter 7 filing. Any thoughts on whether we can pursue this? For now, we were planning on resigning our jobs and living off our savings for 6 months before filing for chapter 7 and then hoping to bounce back on the other side of a successful discharge by aggressively interviewing for jobs. We would be reliant on friends and family to help us with living arrangements through that time as we wouldn't have a home or our vehicles.

submitted by v0x_p0pular to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.14 18:53 ToSmiteOrFlight Question about non resident CPL reciprocity

I know NH and AZ non resident CPLs allow you to conceal carry in the state. However i’m not interested in that, this is just to avoid registration. With that being said would i be able to go to a state like PA and grab a non resident CPL and use it for the same exemption purposes? Even though MI does not recognize non resident PA CPLs for concealed carry?
edit: i have a MI cpl, this is just for exemption purposes. I intend on building a few pistol/sbr and i know its only a SALES registration. but i just like to have the peace of mind know any out of state non resident permit i have protects me from that huge grey area.
Thanks

submitted by ToSmiteOrFlight to Miguns [link] [comments]

2024.05.14 18:51 job-posts-usa-visa 05.14-3 Jobs with USA visa sponsorship

Senior Analyst - Data Science

Visa sponsorship
New York, NY
https:// goo .su/ 92JJqLT

Sugar Boilers

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$15.43 per hour
Lakeland, LA
achatman@almaplt .com

Analog Design Engineer

Visa sponsorship
Tempe, AZ
https:// goo .su/ Hagg

Apple and Peach Picker

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$15.81 per hour
Hendersonville, NC
robrob2970@gmail .com

Staff Accountant

H1B Visa sponsorship
San Gabriel, CA
https:// goo .su/ zPe0B3i

Amusement & Recreation Attendant – Food Concessions

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$11.44-$16.47 per hour
Hernando, FL
rudyseastcoast@aol .com
📺 Do you have a YouTube or TikTok channel or a blog? Mention us and earn! Our affiliate program: nkd .in/dBgbkvWW
🏤 Our telegram channel lnkd .in/gAb3HbTz
📲 Please contact us through the online chat on our website
👨💻For international developers and engineers with 3+ years of experience - developer2usa .com
🥖Get sponsored for access to the job portal (we provide one random person with yearly access when a yearly plan is purchased) lnkd .in/dtBrbTsi
When you buy a yearly plan, you sponsor one person in need for yearly access to our job portal!
🎒Our US Work Visa courses lnkd .in/dtnMz2mU
🎰 US Embassy Slots Booking lnkd .in/dFp2rRyp
Please help us grow, share this post with your auditory or simply like it!🙏 move2usajobs .com

submitted by job-posts-usa-visa to jobsUSAimmigration [link] [comments]

2024.05.14 18:50 PitifulHoneydew7302 21M, 6 figure income(pre-tax), 70k+ in debt

Hey folks, I posted a little while ago asking for information and advice on how to assess my debt a little more realistically. I spent most of my life extremely poor and had nothing. I was raised on the value that if you want something go and get it bc nobody is gonna hand it to you. For this reason I think I got carried away in life. Bit off more than I can chew per se. I’ve come to the realization that I can easily pay off the debt I’m in with some determination and discipline. My main struggle is my living situation. For context I am a traveling renewable energy technician. I spent the first 3 years of my career all over the country and just recently over the past 6 months decided to plant some roots where I am now in AZ/CA border. I currently live in a 30ft travel trailer. It’s not “ideal” but I bought it brand new a little over a year ago because I was tired of paying rent endlessly throwing away my paychecks, however, I realize now that what I’m doing isn’t much different. I still owe 28k on a 40k trailer and it only appraises for 15-18k. I’m tired of it and want to move into a home or room with one of my coworkers but due to the high DTI I have at this time I don’t think I could reasonably afford that. I have $7500 in CC, $11,000 in unsecured personal loan, $20,000 in auto loan, and $28,000 for my Travel trailer loan. I have a BASE salary of $77,500/ year. I do have some kickers (bonuses and weekend pay available) which bring my total gross income to well over 100k a year. My question is this, if you were in my shoes what kind of advice would you have for me? Is there a way that I can default on some of this debt? Settle? I want to start over… but I don’t think that Bankruptcy is an option due to my income. I want to invest my money and have something to show for the money I make but all of my assets at this time are depreciating.
Any help or guidance is well appreciated. Thanks in advance guys.

submitted by PitifulHoneydew7302 to Debt [link] [comments]

2024.05.14 17:39 PitifulHoneydew7302 21M, 6 figure income(pre-tax), 70k+ in debt

Hey folks, I (21M) posted a little while ago asking for information and advice on how to assess my debt a little more realistically. I spent most of my life extremely poor and had nothing. I was raised on the value that if you want something go and get it bc nobody is gonna hand it to you. For this reason I think I got carried away in life. Bit off more than I can chew per se. I’ve come to the realization that I can easily pay off the debt I’m in with some determination and discipline. My main struggle is my living situation. For context I am a traveling renewable energy technician. I spent the first 3 years of my career all over the country and just recently over the past 6 months decided to plant some roots where I am now in AZ/CA border. I currently live in a 30ft travel trailer. It’s not “ideal” but I bought it brand new a little over a year ago because I was tired of paying rent endlessly throwing away my paychecks, however, I realize now that what I’m doing isn’t much different. I still owe 28k on a 40k trailer and it only appraises for 15-18k. I’m tired of it and want to move into a home or room with one of my coworkers but due to the high DTI I have at this time I don’t think I could reasonably afford that. I have $7500 in CC, $11,000 in unsecured personal loan, $20,000 in auto loan, and $28,000 for my Travel trailer loan. I have a BASE salary of $77,500/ year. I do have some kickers (bonuses and weekend pay available) which bring my total gross income to well over 100k a year. My question is this, if you were in my shoes what kind of advice would you have for me? Is there a way that I can default on some of this debt? Settle? I want to start over… but I don’t think that Bankruptcy is an option due to my income. I want to invest my money and have something to show for the money I make but all of my assets at this time are depreciating.
Any help or guidance is well appreciated. Thanks in advance guys.

submitted by PitifulHoneydew7302 to Money [link] [comments]

2024.05.13 18:24 job-posts-usa-visa 05.13-3 Jobs with USA visa sponsorship

🌎 Please visit our new unique job portal that has 7000+ positions with USA visa sponsorship! move2usajobs .com. Free trial available!
🙏🙏🙏 PLEASE READ OUR FAQ HERE 🙏🙏🙏 https://lnkd .in/dSp6jC52
If you find the post useful, kindly like&share! The first website in the industry with real USA jobs for immigrants and foreigners! 👩❤️👨
⚡️NEW! H-1B (CAP and Exempt, Sponsors), J-1 (Internship, Traineeship, Work and Travel, Teaching), Studying in USA (Including Scholarships), CPT and OPT Sponsors, J-2, O-1, B-1/B-2, EB-5, EB-2, EB-3! About 3k$. If you are interested, please check https://lnkd .in/d65MsiuA
✈️ Try our Visa Getter, increase your chances to immigrate to the USA by 50% https://lnkd .in/d2vvukps
🌐 New free option - check your eligibility for different USA work visas here relocate2america .com
⚖️ Our legal adviser https://lnkd .in/dmZE8vgk
#hiring #usajobs #visasponsorship #jobs #jobsearch #findjob #career #applynow #ilovemyjob #usa #us #usjob #workinus #unitedstates #h1b #h2b #h2a #eb3 #greencard #international #abroad
Please delete spaces in the links to access the application pages

Senior Data Engineer (Rust)

Visa sponsorship
Manhattan, NY
https:// goo .su/ aqe9P

Seafood Processor

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$12.63 per hour
Lafayette, LA
chezfransfd@gmail .com

Temp Bookkeeper Accountant - Entry Level

H1B Visa sponsorship
Brooklyn, NY
https:// goo .su/ TVvb

Field Harvest Operator

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$18.50 per hour
Manitowoc, WI
rthomson@lakesidefoods .com

Bilingual Field Service Project Engineer

H1B Visa sponsorship
Phoenix, AZ
https:// goo .su/ VgxROWf

Vegetable Harvester & Packer

H-2 Visa sponsorship
$17.80 per hour
King Ferry, NY
jason@turekfarms .com
📺 Do you have a YouTube or TikTok channel or a blog? Mention us and earn! Our affiliate program: https://lnkd .in/dBgbkvWW
🏤 Our telegram channel https://lnkd .in/gAb3HbTz
📲 Please contact us through the online chat on our website
👨💻For international developers and engineers with 3+ years of experience - developer2usa .com
🥖Get sponsored for access to the job portal (we provide one random person with yearly access when a yearly plan is purchased) https://lnkd .in/dtBrbTsi
When you buy a yearly plan, you sponsor one person in need for yearly access to our job portal!
🎒Our US Work Visa courses https://lnkd .in/dtnMz2mU
🎰 US Embassy Slots Booking https://lnkd .in/dFp2rRyp
Please help us grow, share this post with your auditory or simply like it!🙏 https://move2usajobs .com

submitted by job-posts-usa-visa to jobsUSAimmigration [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 22:24 SunnySammy87 Filed skeletal petition on the 9th

So I know credit karma isn't your true fico score, but we filed on the 9th, I logged into credit karma yesterday just for poops and giggles and our scores have gone up 150 points since the date we filed. I was floored to see that. Thank goodness we have an amazing attorney. Bankruptcy is such a forbidden word and so tabu but honestly at this point I'm more than happy with our decision to file chap 7. We got served a wage garnishment for 22k and that's not including all our other debts (which is a lot) and we were able to claim the homestead exemption so we get to keep our house and equity. Never in my life do I ever want to have a cc unless absolutely necessary. I wish the best for everyone in this forum❤️

submitted by SunnySammy87 to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 21:39 L3theGMEsbegin leavemeanon- wh@re @re the sh@res.

This post is the first of (at least) 3. I’ve been writing it for a few days now, so it’s pretty long. Some parts are a little repetitive, but this stuff is complicated (for a reason) and I really want people to understand how it works. Clarity is important to me because 1) I want to know when I’m wrong, and 2) obscurity and complexity are pretty much the only things supporting the House of Cards.
Oh and I hate to ask but - even if you just read the TLDR (or can’t read all) but think the post is at least worth looking at, please upvote. I’ve seen the power of the bots and all the words are scary to begin with. Save the award money for more GME 🚀🚀
//

TLDR:

APs, like Citadel, use ETFs to provide liquidity. When there are lots of buyers (GME in January), it’s their job to make sure those buyers have sellers to reduce volatility. Yes, stopping squeezes is a large part of their job. They do this by buying ETF shares and selling the GME inside. BUT the SEC has made a series of exemptions for APs that allows them to sell ETF shares up to 6 days before depositing the securities needed for creation. It’s selling before buying, and not locating shares to borrow. That’s naked shorting, up to 50,000 shares at a time. And the securities needed for deposit within 6 days, the ones naked shorted? They go unreported as part of bona fide market making. That’s where (some of) the shares are. In this post, I go looking for them.
//

ELIA:

ETFs trade on the market like stocks, but they actually represent some proportion of underlying securities. Authorized Participants (APs are big banks and Citadel) trade ETFs in groups of 50,000 shares called “creation baskets” - and these creation baskets can be exchanged with the underlying securities in the ETFs proportions. (lol it’s actually anyproportion, but more on that later)
For an AP: 50,000 shares of ETF = “creation basket” = 50,000 shares of underlying securities.
They’re interchangeable, for a small fee.
This process allows APs to profit from arbitrage: the process of creating or redeeming creation baskets to profit from differences in an ETF’s market price and the Net-Asset-Value (NAV) of the securities underlying it. A presentation given at Wharton (linked below) showed that APs can make higher and more “predictable” returns by exploiting an exemption that allows them to sell ETF shares that they do not own up to 6 days before purchasing the securities needed to create them.
This is effectively short selling via ETF, and they are legally exempt from locating a valid share to borrow. So it’s naked short selling via ETF.
Also, the shares deposited (short, naked, or otherwise) for ETF creation are not recorded on the APs books, so any short interest involved in arbitrage will not show up in FINRA numbers. Per the Securities Act of 1933.
However, as the presentation explains, evidence of this activity would include creation of ETF shares without redemption, particularly in ETFs that are more liquid than their underlying securities. cough, GME, cough
This would result in consistently increased ownership in the ETF, so evidence of this process can be found in ETF ownership anomalies.
I discuss this data and more, which ultimately suggest, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence of heinous levels of naked short selling across multiple securities, systemically linked through these ETFs and hidden by bona fide market making arbitrage provisions. Due to liquidity, or lack thereof, and GME’s 60+ ETFs, it was the perfect target for this activity. This is why GME is the black hole.
Whoopsie
I argue that Citadel and friends tried bankrupting GME with this system by hiding naked shorts and FTDs across these ETFs, hoping to dilute share price all the way to bankruptcy. I discuss mechanism behind this, HFT’s role, how BoA, GS, and JP got involved, how RC pretty much handed Citadel’s balls over to BlackRock, and what all the footprints left behind might reveal about the scope of this whole thing.
Spoiler, they’re fucked^fucked
//

Preface

(( I’m skeptical by nature. Like any tool, skepticism isn’t inherently good or bad - it’s just useful. In some cases more than others. ))
As a disclaimer, not only am I not a financial advisor. 6 months ago I had virtually no financial background whatsoever. The entirety of my relevant knowledge has come from months of independent research and personal interviews. I believe it’s fair to say I have a proficiency for puzzles and a nose for bullshit - and the dynamic between the two has served me well in the past.
I attempt to discuss an incredibly complex system here, the depth of which I’m certainly ignorant to. I decided the “Great Wall of Text” approach just was too much. Plus, I’ve been so close to putting things together for such a long time, I’m eager to have it reviewed. So I’d like present the story as soon as possible it to encourage more apes to dig deeper into this stuff.
I’m sure many of you have years of experience beyond me, but I’ve gone to great lengths in trying to understand the mechanics and regulations at a granular level - as well as their context in the events we’ve hodled through - so I hope you’ll at least give me a chance. I really hope you can correct me where I’m mistaken. I’ll try to answer all questions I can in the comments. I just like to figure stuff out.
It took months of notes and connecting dots to put this together, and I’ll eventually discuss mechanics and examples of arbitrage, creation/redemption, liquidity provisions, ex-clearing, synthetic options positions, gamma-delta hedging, disclosure laws, exemptions, Repos, RRPs, APs/MMs/BDs, FTDs, ETFs, ETNs, and all the regulations supposedly governing this whole fiasco. I try to stick to the official facts and documents, and I hope you glance at the sources I linked.
I’ll try keeping it to 3 chapters, though. This post will be the first - on ETF Arbitrage and it’s importance to GME.

Introduction

The true beginning of this story has been diligently and beautifully covered in the last few weeks by , , Dr. T, Wes Christian, and more. It starts with greedy and malicious short sellers making fortunes at the expense of companies, their employees, and their shareholders. This problem has existed for decades but was able to scale around 1990 - with the emergence of High Frequency Trading (HFT), Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and Options trading. Together, they allowed shares sold short and FTDs to essentially be scattered in various places, as this 2019 video and this 2013 SEC risk alert explain.
I urge you, at some point, to look closely at both of those. Based on everything we’ve seen, I believe they are very pertinent and I’ll be leaning heavily on them to explain my reasoning.
ETFs and options trading allow short positions in many individual securities to aggregate, roll forward, and be dispersed (and hidden) in index funds and derivatives. This is, effectively, refurbishing FTDs to manipulate the supply and drive price down. The potential consequences of this scheme was forewarned in 2006 by Patrick Byrne when his company, Overstock, was victimized by this process. Byrne worked with Wes Christian in 2006 to bring attention to the issue, but traction was soon lost in 2008 when a… more immediate disaster… popped up.
In the 2000’s, High-Frequency-Trading (HFT) began dominating the markets. Citadel, possibly the world’s largest HFT trading firm, AND FRIENDS got involved when realized that “predictable” returns can be made through ETF arbitrage.
Index funds like ETFs hold securities in certain proportions to track some index. To an Authorized Participant (AP) like Citadel, ETF shares are traded in baskets of 50,000, and they’re exchangeable with securities in the proportions of the ETFs holdings. This is called creation (buying shares and creating ETF) and redemption (redeeming ETF for shares inside).
If there are differences in an ETFs trading price and it’s Net-Asset-Value (NAV), even for a fraction of a second, this is a profitable opportunity for an AP. If NAV > ETF price, then the 50,000 underlying securities are worth more individually than as an ETF. APs can buy ETF, redeem ETF shares for its underlying shares, then sell for a profit. If NAV < ETF price, APs can create ETF shares by depositing the underlying securities into the ETF fund, which provides the AP with ETF shares to sell for profit.
APs are also allowed to sell ETF shares up to 6 days before creating them, as explained in the linked video. This is effectively a short position, and *because there is no supply limit for ETFs (and ETF creation/redemption has less regulation than in short selling equities) this can theoretically be repeated and hidden in perpetuity.
And they don’t even need a locate. This is essentially legal naked shorting renamed providing liquidity.
So, for example, if the AP has reason the believe the NAV will decrease within 6 days, they can redeem ETF shares and delay creation, hoping to profit from the decreased NAV. The video calls this “directional short selling” - basically a euphemism for legal naked short selling.
In most cases, this process is effective in reducing volatility by moving the “noise trading” into various ETFs. GME, clearly, is not most cases. I don’t think the system considered what happens when there are more shares owed than should be owned.
But does this really even happen? Or to a significant degree? From the Wharton presentation:
“ Directional short selling is the strongest indicator of both short interest percentage and FTDs in ETFs. “
This was likely practiced in a number of stocks. Or entire ETFs, such as XRT, which the presentation shows as having 77 million 13F (institutional) owners in 2017, despite only 11 million shares outstanding…
I argue that GameStop was the crux of Wall Street’s arrogance. I argue that existing data indicates naked short selling attempts to send GME into a death spiral by rolling at least double the number of outstanding shares in derivative short positions and FTDs, effectively diluting share price by inflating supply.
This would’ve been high-risk/high-reward with GME, because it’s 70 million shares outstanding is so small compared to other targeted companies. Blockbuster had 220 million. AMC has 450 million.
With such limited supply, these “refurbished” (rehypothecated, rolling) FTDs can be more effective in driving price down. However, if the “bankruptcy death spiral” fails, covering years worth of these positions gets very violent.
Why? Well the supply is comparatively low to begin with, and the creation/redemption process during the death spiralactually syphons real shares from GMEs float (I’ll explain how that works below). So the arbitrage process has moved a portion of the (already small) float into ETFs, and each share covered simultaneously increases demand and reduces supply. At some point, GME’s liquidity becomes bone dry because so many of it’s actual shares were converted into ETF shares.
Demand for GME keeps rising, but supply is already zero. Demand drives the price up, lack of liquidity drives the price up, APs scramble to find ETF shares, further increasing demand and decreasing ETF supply. However, this time, providing the GME to cover shorts adds no extra supply, so the price for anything containing GME goes vertical. The whole process starts feeding on itself in reverse, and I argue that this has already begun.

Chapter 1: ETF ARBITRAGE

The Game

Blackrock’s explanation
I’m the context of ETFs, arbitrage is simply profiting from the price difference of a security and an ETF containing that security. ETF shares trade on the market at market price, like an equity stock, but an ETF share actually represents an aggregate total of many stocks in a set proportion. The aggregate value of these equities in that proportion is called the Net-Asset-Value (NAV).
ETF shares don’t always trade at their NAV. When this happens, there is a potential for profit because 50,000 shares of the ETF == 50,000 shares of the underlying securities in price, but Authorized Participants (APs) can exchange them nonetheless for a small fee. APs are usually big Banks and Market Makers (MMs): JP, Goldman, BoA, oh and Citadel.
This “exchange” is done through a process called creation and redemption. APs, exclusively, are allowed to do this, and APs are usually big Banks and Market Makers (MMs): JP, Goldman, BoA, oh and Citadel. For example:
Blackrock’s ETFs (iShares) are generally rebalanced 4 times per year: at the end of February, May, August, and November. So if GameStop goes to $350 in January after being balanced around $16 in November, the list I mentioned above (and more) can buy IWM, IJR, IWN, IJT, and all the other ETFs that GME is a portion of, break them open into their individual shares (this is done in 50,000 share baskets called Creation Units) and sell the GME inside. Because the ETFs proportioned GME at a $16 dollar price, the ETFs trading price didn’t go up as much it would if GME were proportioned in real time. NAV =/= ETF trading price, so while GME is rising, 50,000 ETF shares are cheaper than the 50,000 shares they’re redeemed for, because of the GME inside.
Why are they allowed to do this?? According to the SEC, the answer is… Liquidity Oh, and somehow also efficiency and transparency.
//
Let’s take a step back for a second. So some portion of GME’s 70 million shares are purchased by ETF funds, like BlackRock’s iShares, in order to issue the first ETF shares. Then, APs come in and either 1) put some of those GME shares back or 2) take more out, based on the NAV of the ETF. Now, and this this important, because APs PROFIT from volatility through arbitrage, they have an incentive to favor creation over redemption.
If, as an AP, you buy the shares from the market (or just naked short them), and have them trade as ETF instead, you decrease supply of the security. This increases volatility, which creates more opportunity for arbitrage - i.e. more opportunity for profit. AND if you have more shares for creation/redemption, you have better control over the prices of both the ETF and it’s securities.
Did I mention that Citadel is the world’s largest HFT firm?
Anyway, there is a very strong incentive to take shares from securities and have them trade as ETF instead. And I’d argue that at some point, the “providing liquidity” excuse becomes void, because the AP was the one who diminished the liquidity in the first place.
//
Well what happens when an 7% of an ETF contains shares of a company you intend to bankrupt?
This 2019 Presentation at Wharton, as linked above, briefly talks about XRT. I’ve linked it a few times now, pleasewatch or save that video.
The presenter notes that the example is extreme, and I’d say it’s borderline heinous. The SPDR fund had issued ~11 million shares of XRT in 2017, but the 13F filings added up to 77 million shares. There had been 66 million shares created, but not redeemed. AP’s have the exclusive ability to create shares, and in 2017 the settlement period was 2 days instead of 6…
The presentation also discusses an AP’s exemption allowing them to sell ETF shares up to 6 days before depositing the required securities into the ETF fund to create the basket. The presenter discusses certain cases where ETFs are more liquid than their underlying securities, like GME, and the ETF shares seem to be continually created without ever being redeemed. This led to XRT.
So of those 77 million XRT shares, say 6 % were GME (not sure exactly what it was at the time but it’s 6.75% now). That represents 4.62 million shares of GME trading in XRT baskets. That represents almost 10% of GME’s reported float, from this one ETF alone.
And where are these shares reported, exactly? I’ll let BlackRock tell you:
** “any securities accepted for deposit and any securities used to satisfy redemption requests will be sold in transactions that would be exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”).” **
As I’m sure you guessed, they’re off the books.
//
To recap:
When institutional investors and retail investors place bids for ETF shares, APs (banks and citadel) can sell ETF shares that they don’t have to “provide liquidity”. Then, within 6 days, the AP must deposit the sold securities into the ETF Fund.
BUT!
APs can (and have been known to) profit from expected decreases in the NAV of the ETF by waiting up to 6 days to deliver the shares. Until settled, this is a naked short position, and it’s not reported in the short interest. Oh and one more thing,
GME is in over 60 ETFs. Go to “Top ETF” under “Ownership”. 68 listed ETFs right now. An AP can short XRT today, and settle by shorting IWM next week, then GAMR, then XRT again, then IJR…. you get the picture.
//
And it keeps getting worse.
How exactly do you think this creation/redemption process is carried out in, say, Citadel? Is there a creation/redemption department with a few dozen people monitoring all these ETFs, the underlying securities, the NAV, and the incoming orders - looking for price discrepancies? A few hundred people? Just Ken-bo? Is Kenny G the Michael Jordan of arbitrage?
Nope. Citadel is all about HFT. It’s algos.
From Investopedia in 2020 -
“Another way these [HFT] firms make money is by looking for price discrepancies between securities on different exchanges or asset classes. This strategy is called statistical arbitrage, wherein a proprietary trader is on the lookout for temporary inconsistencies in prices across different exchanges. With the help of ultra fast transactions, they capitalize on these minor fluctuations which many don’t even get to notice.”
So, to be clear, Citadel, the world’s largest HFT firm by ~20x the AUM of second place - the very same firm that clears over 50% of RH’s trades and gets almost as much total trading volume as the entire NYSE, does the vast majority of that volume with lines of code, stuffed into thousands of black boxes in some fortress in the middle of nowhere… They buy yachts with this creation/redemption system. Do you think these lines of code secure a locate when they short shares to “provide liquidity”?
(( Side note on another gem from that link:
“HFT firms also make money by indulging in momentum ignition. The firm might aim to cause a spike in the price of a stock by using a series of trades with the motive of attracting other algorithm traders to also trade that stock. The instigator of the whole process knows that after the somewhat “artificially created” rapid price movement, the price reverts to normal and thus the trader profits by taking a position early on and eventually trading out before it fizzles out.”
So yeah, no wonder we’ve had dozens of days with insane swings that ended up within 2 percent of open. Those RH orders pile up on Ken’s computers and he can basically execute them however and whenever he’d like. I digress. ))
//

GameStop

Back to GME in January. Ryan Cohen stepped in and at one point, GME did almost 200 million volume in a day. As buy orders come in, market makers like Citadel had to add liquidity from somewhere. After all, GME’s 70m shares outstanding pales in comparison to most other stocks in XRT, and just in general. AMC has 450m. NOK has 4.7 billion.
So in a perfect world, these HFT algos buy ETF shares from the market, redeem them (often from BlackRock, who owns iShares, or StateStreet who distributes SPDR ETFs), and sell the GME. Remember - the number of ETF shares outstanding can fluctuate, but not GME (without shorts or moves from GameStop), so this would reduce the total number of shares of the ETF and restore the shares of GME that the process had originally depleted.
So unless I’m mistaken here, keeping in mind Citadel itself clears almost the same volume as the entire NYSE - to provide liquidity and decrease volatility as buying pressure go up (aka delay the MOASS), should be buying ETF shares to put the GME back. So ETF ownership should decrease as they’re bought up and broken apart. If the ETF ownership stays the same, the extra liquidity is more likely to be short positions, naked or otherwise (to be covered the next day or who knows when).
Well, somehow, from January 15-March 31, ETF institutional ownership went up.
//

Here they are

I did some math.
I used FINRA numbers and the official ETF issuer’s websites (SEC requires them to provide this) to find 1) total shares outstanding today in May (from issuer), 2) institutional ownership from Jan and March (FINRA), 3) the percent GME (issued), and 4) who bought shares (and who did NOT buy shares).
I looked at about 30 of GME biggest ETFs are picked out the ETFs with the most shares floating around. These account for the majority of total volume. Here are some of the standouts, as of, May 31:
IWM - (0.44% GME) - 300m shares outstanding and 345m institutional ownership.
345m IWM shares represents 1.5m GME shares.
IJR - (1.15% GME) - 629.7m shares outstanding and 444m institutional ownership.
1.15% of 629.7m shares is 7.24 million shares of GME.
FNDX - (1.01% GME) - 128.55m shares outstanding and 100.4m institutional ownership.
Another 1.3 million GME.
last but not least
Wedbush back at it again with GAMR - (1.42% GME) - 70.77m shares outstanding and 190,000 institutional ownership.
Another million.
Honorable mention goes to XRT, with 15 million institutional owners holding a total 1 million GameStop shares, though XRT has only 9m shares outstanding.
Adding up just the ETFs I looked at, there are over 20 million claimed owners GME via ETF
That 20m number doesn’t even include retail ownership in ETF, short interest, “family offices” (like Archegos) that don’t have to report their positions to the SEC, any shares from ivestco ETFs (they have many shares outstanding but no reported GME weight despite owning GME, per fintel), or any trades settled in ex-clearing.
It also excludes short positions extended by options and other derivative instruments, which I’ll talk about in the next post.
This is just the tip of the Glacier.
Even the at 20 million at face value means that, as of May, there is a float sized chunk of GME trading as ETF shares.
I’d estimate, just through the ways around regulation that an ape can find on the internet, the number is at least twice that. Byrne mentioned that it could be closer to 5x the reported numbers.
When Ryan Cohen simultaneously mapped GameStop’s future and gobbled up 9 million shares, I think shorts piled into ETFs, particularly BlackRock’s iShares. They got a glimpse. In light of this, I think it’s very telling that they hodled. Hodled Citadel, by the balls, that is.
Oh, and somehow, almost every ETF I looked at miraculously increased in shares outstanding and institutional ownership 2020-2021, even from Jan to March. Despite the fact that the NAV was consistently higher during those periods…
Among the buyers were Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs…
So who were the sellers?

submitted by L3theGMEsbegin to u/L3theGMEsbegin [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 14:29 blaxdle Filing separately spouse and income implications and exemptions

My spouse and I have come to the conclusion that I should file and they should not due to my consumer debt being very high and theirs is relatively low with manageable payments. We have no joint debts or dependents. The only asset I have is my car which is worth 15000 and I have 10100 left on my car loan. My consumer debt is about 50k. Theirs is about 6k but theyre under payment plans.
Our income is about 80000 before taxes here in Virginia which puts us below the means test maximum. How much income are we allowed to keep during the bankruptcy process? After taxes I take home 3k a month and I spend about 1450 every month on debts before other variable and fixed living expenses.
In Virginia the exemption for cars are 6k and I have about 5500 in equity to my car currently. Are you able to use leftover exemption amounts toward your car?
My spouse is an authorized user on several of my cards however they neverror used them. Would her credit report be affected aside from the removal of those lines of credit?

submitted by blaxdle to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 04:03 GardenNook Rest Pay

A bit convoluted so work with me here,
I work for a large carrier out of our Portland yard. I was hired in Portland, and am an Oregon employee for them (their corporate office is in AZ) and whenever we change terminals at this company we have to sign transfer documentation to become an employee of that other terminal. So here’s my question, our CA and WA drivers are paid “Rest Pay”, one hour of minimum wage a day which doesn’t sound much but adds up to around an extra $6,000 a year. This is because CA and WA are fighting the pre-emption decision of the Federal government on Meal and Rest Break Pay and corporate doesn’t want to be sued for back pay if the decision is reversed. Technically OR has the same laws but since it hasn’t been challenged by Oregon they don’t pay Oregon drivers the rest pay. . . So it got me thinking, aren’t our CA and WA drivers Oregon employees? Despite living in different states they were hired out of our terminal and work out of it. As far as I am aware the only time they’re viewed as CA or WA employees is in regards of the state income taxes due to Motor Carrier exemptions that specifically word an exemption for just home state income tax, but they still fall under OR minimum wage laws etc. when they work any hourly shifts pulling local while they’re OTR.
So, I guess that’s my question, do OTR drivers hired out of their home states to work for an office out of another state bound by those labor laws? In which case I think OR drivers are due Rest Pay because our coworkers are being paid outside of same-wage exemptions for experience etc. for a rest break we’re not receiving despite being all Oregon employees.

submitted by GardenNook to legal [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 03:50 GardenNook Minimum Wage

A bit convoluted so work with me here,
I work for a large carrier out of our Portland yard. I was hired in Portland, and am an Oregon employee for them (their corporate office is in AZ) and whenever we change terminals at this company we have to sign transfer documentation to become an employee of that other terminal. So here’s my question, our CA and WA drivers are paid “Rest Pay”, one hour of minimum wage a day which doesn’t sound much but adds up to around an extra $6,000 a year. This is because CA and WA are fighting the pre-emption decision of the Federal government on Meal and Rest Break Pay and corporate doesn’t want to be sued for back pay if the decision is reversed. Technically OR has the same laws but since it hasn’t been challenged by Oregon they don’t pay Oregon drivers the rest pay. . . So it got me thinking, aren’t our CA and WA drivers Oregon employees? Despite living in different states they were hired out of our terminal and work out of it. As far as I am aware the only time they’re viewed as CA or WA employees is in regards of the state income taxes due to Motor Carrier exemptions, but they still fall under OR minimum wage laws etc. when they work any hourly shifts pulling local while they’re OTR.
So, I guess that’s my question, do OTR drivers hired out of their home states to work for an office out of another state bound by those labor laws? In which case I think OR drivers are due Rest Pay because our coworkers are being paid outside of same-wage exemptions. for a rest break we’re not receiving despite being all Oregon employees.

submitted by GardenNook to Truckers [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 02:16 Puzzleheaded_Fix7560 Questions about Disability Exemption (Private Disability through former employer, NOT SSDI)

Context: Disabled 5+ years. Deeply in medical and credit card debt and considering bankruptcy. Still unable to work.
Prior to last fall, I had disability income benefits through a private disability company. In October of last year, they cancelled these benefits (said I was well enough to work, which I'm not yet), so I hired a lawyer and submitted an appeal for benefits reinstation. My disability appeal was rejected (they didn't reinstate my benefits), but my lawyer said there's a very good chance that if he threatens them with lawsuit, they'll settle with me in order to prevent going to court and losing. So, in the event that I get a settlement for a lawsuit, how will this affect me if I file for bankruptcy? Since it's a settlement from a disability company, is it treated as "exempt" for the sake of BK? Or is it non-exempt because it's the result of a lawsuit, and the disablity exemption only protects monthly disability benefits?
I consulted two local BK attorneys (Arizona) on this so I could get a couple different opinions, one of them said the settlement would be exempt and I should file for BK right away, and the other one said it would not be exempt.
My main questions are:

Would a lump-sum settlement from a disability company be exempt from a bankrupcty, even if it's not benefits or backpay but more like a "buyout" or "don't-sue-me" money?
If the settlement is NOT exempt, would it be possible to try to push through a bankruptcy before asking my lawyer to contact/threaten the disabilty company and negotiate a settlement? Is that something where having the "right to file a lawsuit/claim" means I couldn't do this ethically?

I'm not trying to scam the system, just know my options... realistically the settlement wouldn't be enough to settle all my debts AND live on AND manage my medical care long-term, so I still think bankruptcy is worth looking into if I can do it without breaking any laws or being fraudulent.
Many thanks in advance!

submitted by Puzzleheaded_Fix7560 to Bankruptcy [link] [comments]

http://rodzice.org/