alters two quantities: (1) the amount of the ereditoFs claim against the estate on the petition date and (2) the amount of collateral securing the creditor’s claim on the petition date. Those two quantities ultimately determine the extent to which a creditor is secured for purposes of § 547(b)(5). (i) TCFC’s Claim Against the Estate In this case, had the payments not been made, Smith’s would have owed TCFC $10,728,809.96 (its actual claim on the petition date) plus $12,842,438.96 (the amount of antecedent debt paid in the preference-period transfers), or a total of $23,571,248.92. Thus, TCFC’s hypothetical claim against the estate, in an analysis under § 547(b)(5), is $23,571,248.92. See Henderson v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce (In re Al-Ben, Inc.), 156 B.R. 72, 75 (Bankr. N.D.Ala.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Gray v. A.I. Credit Corp. (In
holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that the creditors claim on the petition date for purposes of a  547b5 analysis was the unpaid balance of the store loans as of the filing date plus the total amount of the alleged preferential payments holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the date of filing the petition for dissolution as the valuation date for equitable distribution holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding that the right of the debtor to claim property as exempt is generally determined on the facts as they exist on the date of the filing of the petition