Are assets lost in a bankruptcy valued at the time of loss, or according to current value?
You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock.   You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.
Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no? To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank.  Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral.  Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose.  Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for.  Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime.  Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board.  Maybe interest rates have spiked.  Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property.  In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed.  Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up.  (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on.  This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value.  During this time, the bank is out $200,000.  That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure.  The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done.  There will be court filing fees and so on.  If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well.  If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees.  This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses.  You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you.  Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more.   That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed.  They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it.  If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick.  So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property.  80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot. Safe deposit boxes are rented out to customers, and their content is not bank's property. Money deposits are not being taken by the creditors if a bank goes bankrupt, for the same reason - its not bank's money, it belongs to the depositors. However, frequently banks go bankrupt because they do not have enough cash at hand to pay back the depositors. In this case, unless insured (up to $250K in the US, EUR100K in EU), some or all of the deposits may not be immediately (or even at all) available. Depositors become creditors of the bank in the bankruptcy proceedings. Safe deposit box, however, is rented to the customer, and the content is not removed by the bank to be used elsewhere, as happens with monetary deposits. So even if the bank is bankrupt and doesn't have enough money to cover the monetary deposits, the content of the safe deposit boxes doesn't magically disappear, and the owner can get it back. The access to the deposit box itself may be limited due to the bankruptcy, but the content will remain there waiting for its owners. In the United States, when a bank goes bankrupt, FDIC takes over it and its assets. Safe deposit box rental contract is an asset. It is taken over by the FDIC and will be sold to a buyer (usually as a part of the whole branch where the box is located), who will continue operating/servicing it. Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent  of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder. P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price.  You take share price divided by annual earnings per share.  You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share.  It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy.  It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth.   A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4.  A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400.  By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other.  One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss).  Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy.  Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk. The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury   Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other. I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company.  It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares.  The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000.  This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that.  So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders.  The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain.  The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go. If you have two other assets whose payoffs tomorrow are known and whose prices today are known, you can value it.  Let's say you can observe a risk-free bond and a stock. Using those, you can calculate the state prices/risk-neutral probabilities. NOTE: You do not need to know the true probabilities.   The value of your asset is then the state-price weighted sum of future payoffs. All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis. "This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word ""asset"" has a fairly straight forward definition.  Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value.  The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. ""Liability"" is tougher to define, and depends on context.  In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed.  It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value.  It is not a debt. Many people use the word ""liability"" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income.  (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.)  With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead.  An expense is a cost of doing business.  For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen.  The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business.  It is simply a necessary expense for your business." "Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being ""what my stuff is worth"" and equity and liabilities together as being ""who owns it."" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)" "A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless.  They market ""title loans"" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool." I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable.  And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide. Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions.  So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company.  What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal. Yes, the borrower is responsible for paying back the full amount of the loan. Foreclosure gives the bank possession of the property, which they can (and do) sell. Any shortfall is still the borrower's responsibility. But, no, the bank can't sell the property for a dollar; they have to make a reasonable effort. Usually the sale is done through a sheriff's sale, that is, a more or less carefully supervised auction. Bankruptcy will wipe out the shortfall, and most other debts, but the downside is that most of the rest of your assets will also be sold to help pay off what you owe. Details of what you can keep vary from state to state. If you want to go this route, hire a lawyer.