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.
A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question. Investopedia states: While early exercise is generally not advisable, because the time   value inherent in the option premium is lost upon doing so, there are   certain circumstances under which early exercise may be advantageous.   For example, an investor may choose to exercise a call option that is   deeply in-the-money (such an option will have negligible time value)   just before the ex-dividend date of the underlying stock. This will   enable the investor to capture the dividend paid by the underlying   stock, which should more than offset the marginal time value lost due   to early exercise. So the question is how well do you see the time value factor here? "Whether or not you make money here depends on whether you are buying or selling the option when you open your position.  You certainly would not make money in the scenario where you are buying options at the open.  If fact you would end up loosing quite a lot of money. You do not specify whether you are buying or selling the options, so let's assume that you are buying both the call and the put.  We'll look a profitable trade at the bottom of my answer. Buying an in-the-money Call option with a strike price of $90 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a small fraction over $6000 = (100 x $60) since the intrinsic value value of the option is $60.  Add to this cost any commission charged by your broker. Buying an out-of-the-money Put option with a strike price of $110 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a ""small"" premium - lets say a premium of something like $0.50.  The option has no intrinsic value, only time value and a volatility value, so the exact cost would depend on the time to expiry and the implied volatility of the underlying asset. Since the strike price is ""well out of the money"", being about 27% below the underlying asset price, the premium would be small.  So, assuming the premium of $0.50, you would pay $50 for the option plus any commission applicable. The cash settlement on expiry, with an underlying settlement price of $100, would be a premium of $10 for each of the two options, so you would receive cash of 100 x ($10 + $10) = $2000, less any commission applicable.  However, you have paid $6000 + $50 to purchase the options, so you realise a net loss of $6050 - $2000 = $4050 plus any commissions applicable. Thus, you would make a profit on the put option, but you would realise a very large loss on the call option. On the other hand, if you open your position by selling the call option and buying the put option, then you would make money. For the sale of the call option you would receive about $6000.  For the purchase of the put option you would pay about $50. On settlement, you would pay $1000 to buy back the call option and you would receive about $1000 when selling the put option. Thus you net profit would be about ($6000 - $1000) for the call position, and ($1000 - $50) for the put position.  The net profit would then total $5950 less an commissions payable." "I was wondering how ""future cash flows of the asset"" are predicted? Are they also predicted using fundamental and/or technical analysis? There are a many ways to forecast the future cash flows of assets. For example, for companies: It seems like calculating expected/required rate using CAPM does not belong to either fundamental or technical analysis, does it? I would qualify the CAPM as quantitative analysis because it's mathematics and statistics. It's not really fundamental since its does not relies on economical data (except the prices). And as for technical analysis, the term is often used as a synonym for graphical analysis or chartism, but quantitative analysis can also be referred as technical analysis. the present value of future cash flows [...] (called intrinsic price/value, if I am correct?) Yes you are correct. I wonder when deciding whether an asset is over/fair/under-valued, ususally what kind of price is compared to what other kind of price? If it's only to compare with the price, usually, the Net asset value (which is the book value), the Discount Cash flows (the intrinsic value) and the price of comparable companies and the CAPM are used in comparison to current market price of the asset that you are studying. Why is it in the quote to compare the first two kinds of prices, instead of comparing the current real price on the markets to any of the other three kinds? Actually the last line of the quote says that the comparison is done on the observed price which is the market price (the other prices can't really be observed). But, think that the part: an asset is correctly priced when its estimated price is the same as the present value of future cash flows of the asset means that, since the CAPM gives you an expected rate of return, by using this rate to compute the present value of future cash flows of the asset, you should have the same predicted price. I wrote this post explaining some valuation strategies. Maybe you can find some more information by reading it." "Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the ""value"" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash.   The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company.  That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you.  You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future.  If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want." "Every company has ""capital"". Even if you have a one man company, you probably stated something like ""100 shares of $1 each"", which means you had to take that $100 out of your own private pocket and pay it into the company.  When the company loses money and runs out of cash, they have the possibilities of (1) borrowing some money from the bank, or from a loan shark, (2) borrowing some money from the company owners, or (3) increase the share capital, for example by increasing the number of shares to 10,000 and each share holder pays his part of the $9,900. That's the case that you have here.  However, it is only a ""liability"" in the sense that it isn't money the company earned, it is money that the owners paid in. They have no right to get the money back; the paid-in capital is actually what the owners lose if a limited company goes bankrupt." In my original question, I  was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear. Unfortunately assets placed in a safety deposit box are not covered under the Federal Deposit Insurance Program (FDIC). Unless the bank is found to be negligent in the way it handled or protected your safety deposit box, neither them nor their private insurance company will reimburse you for the loss. Find out if in the duration you had your box with them, they moved, transitioned or merged with another entity. In this specific situation, you may be able to demonstrate negligence on the part of the banks as they have seemingly misplaced your box during their transition phase, and depending upon the value of the items placed in your safety deposit box, you may be entitled to some form of recovery. Some homeowner's insurance policies may also cover the loss, but if you didn't document what you kept in the box, you have difficulty verifying proof of the value. Valuables are often lost but documents can often be reconstructed. You can get stock and bonds by paying a fee for new certificates. For wills and trusts, you can reach out to the lawyer that prepared them for a copy. You should always keep 3 copies of such documents. When you put stuff in the box, always videotape it (photographs can be challenged) but if the video shows it was put in there, although it can still be taken out by you after you turn off the camera, yields more weight in establishing content and potential value. Also know the value of the items and check with your homeowner policy to make sure the default amount covers it, if not then you may need to include a rider to add the difference in value and the video, receipts, appraisals and such will serve you well in the future in such unfortunate circumstances. If the contents of a safety deposit box are lost because you didn't pay the fee, then depending on the state you are in the time frame might vary (3 years on average), but none the less they are sent to the State's unclaimed property/funds department. You can search for these online often times or by contacting the state. It would help for you to find out which scenario you are in, their fault or yours, and proceed accordingly. Good luck.