SI
SI
discoversearch

 Strategies & Market Trends | The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: TH who wrote (60100)2/17/2012 7:28:54 PM
From: posthumousone
   of 102550
 
Here is etrades response to wash sale rule.

(i bought a stock 3.1, sold at a loss on 3.2 ---------bought back the stock on 3.4 triggering wash sale rule, sold the stock on 3.5 at a loss and never bought it back. Therefore I should be allowed to take the loss since it was finally disposed of)

Even though this security was completely closed out, the wash sale still applies. You sold this security, and entered back into the position within the 30 days. Wash sale rules apply when a security is sold at a loss and you have repurchased the position 30 days prior, 30 days after, or the same day (61 day window). The losses incurred are classified as "Wash Sale Loss Disallowed" in Box 5 of your 1099.



There interpretation is I can NEVER take the loss.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: posthumousone who wrote (60161)2/17/2012 7:42:01 PM
From: James Hutton
   of 102550
 

"There interpretation is I can NEVER take the loss"

I believe the loss is deferred, but consult your accountant. You may also want to consider trader tax status, but that's a tough sell for any number of reasons.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Les H who wrote (60160)2/17/2012 7:45:21 PM
From: James Hutton
   of 102550
 
Interesting. Here in the heartland, regular unleaded is about 3.25, on average. The price has stayed down recently, notwithstanding the increase in oil. I'm sure we'll catch up though.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: James Hutton who wrote (60162)2/17/2012 7:46:58 PM
From: posthumousone
1 Recommendation   of 102550
 
Hi. what do you mean deferred? If you have no position in it for 30 days after you last sale then you would take the loss on your last sale. (assuming there is a loss)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: posthumousone who wrote (60164)2/17/2012 8:05:23 PM
From: James Hutton
   of 102550
 
Here's one explanation:

The wash sale rule...

Investors and regular Traders are both subject to the wash sale rule. M2M Traders and Dealers are generally exempt from the Wash Sales Rules for those securities used in their business. This IRS rule (§1091 & §267) limits and defers the current deduction of losses in actively traded securities if you buy and sell substantially the same security within a 61-day window (also referred to as being from "30 days before the sale until 30 days after the sale").

This includes common & preferred stocks and put & call options on those stocks as well as other securities and debt instruments but excludes futures contracts and foreign currencies. Even if a stock is sold and bought on the same day, the wash sale can apply to that transaction. Short sales likewise are subject to the rule. Creative "games" like a wife selling her stock followed by a purchase by her husband or by a family controlled corporation, also result in a deferred (or disallowed) tax-loss. As you can imagine, this can be a real nightmare for active traders who concentrate in just a few different stocks.

Once a transaction's loss is deferred because of the wash sale rule the basis of the stock currently acquired/held is adjusted upward by the amount of the deferral. The next transaction involving those shares, be it the next day or the next year, utilizes the new higher adjust tax-basis. Therefore, if the entire position is subsequently liquidated and you further remain out of the stock for the next 31 consecutive days, the entire deferred loss will generally be recognized for tax-purposes through the increase in basis used to compute the final gain or loss. But if you should re-enter the position within the 31 following days you may again find the wash sale rule comes into play. For active traders this can go on and on and on.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: No Mo Mo who wrote (59905)2/17/2012 8:16:53 PM
From: No Mo Mo
10 Recommendations   of 102550
 
A ghost of CNBC joins the Iran spook-fest ... and Taibbi calls BS.

The first comment -- from someone who probably heard way too many or her apologist 'reports' on the Fed or the Squid:

"...Additionally, I would believe a fortune telling carnival machine before believing anything that floats from the mouth of Erin Burnett."

------------------------------------
(Video at link)

rollingstone.com

Another March to War?

POSTED: February 17, 9:40 AM ET

As a journalist, there’s a buzz you can detect once the normal restraints in your business have been loosened, a smell of fresh chum in the waters, urging us down the road to war. Many years removed from the Iraq disaster, that smell is back, this time with Iran.

You can just feel it: many of the same newspapers and TV stations we saw leading the charge in the Bush years have gone back to the attic and are dusting off their war pom-poms. CNN’s house blockhead, the Goldman-trained ex-finance professional Erin Burnett, came out with a doozie of a broadcast yesterday, a Rumsfeldian jeremiad against the Iranian threat would have fit beautifully in the Saddam’s-sending-drones-at-New-York halcyon days of late 2002. Here’s how the excellent Glenn Greenwald described Burnett’s rant:

"It’s the sort of thing you would produce if you set out to create a mean-spirited parody of mindless, war-hungry, fear-mongering media stars, but you wouldn’t dare go this far because you’d want the parody to have a feel of realism to it, and this would be way too extreme to be believable. She really hauled it all out: WMDs! Terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S. controlled by Tehran! Iran’s long-range nuclear missiles reaching our homeland!!!! She almost made the anti-Muslim war-mongering fanatic she brought on to interview, Rep. Peter King, appear sober and reasonable by comparison."

Like Greenwald, I was particularly struck by Burnett’s freak-out about Iran’s nuclear program, about which she said, “No one buys Iran’s claim that [it is] for peaceful purposes.” She then cited remarks by Director of Intelligence James Clapper, which, she said, “drove that message home.” But then she ran a clip with Clapper’s quote, which read as follows:

"Iran’s technical advances . . . strengthen our assessment that Iran is more than capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weaponif its political leaders, specifically the Supreme Leader himself, choose to do so."

In other words, “If Iran were to decide to be capable of making nuclear weapons, it would be capable of making nuclear weapons.” Unless I'm missing something, that’s a statement that would be true of almost any industrialized country, wouldn't it?

Virtually all of the Iran stories of late have contained some version of this sort of rhetorical sophistry. The news “hook” in most all of these stories is that intelligence reports reveal Iran is “willing” to attack us or go to war – but then there’s usually an asterisk next to the headline, and when you follow the asterisk, it reads something like, “In the event that we attack Iran first.”

An NBC report Greenwald also wrote about put it this way: “Within just the past few days, Iranian leaders have threatened that if attacked, they would launch those missiles at U.S. targets.”

There’s a weird set of internalized assumptions that media members bring to stories like this Iran business. In fact there’s an elaborate belief system we press people adhere to, about how a foreign country may behave toward the U.S., and how it may not behave. It reminds me a little of a passage in Anna Karenina about the belief system of noblemen in Tolstoy’s day:

"Vronsky’s life was particularly happy in that he had a code of principles, which defined with unfailing certitude what he ought and what he ought not to do… These principles laid down as invisible rules: that one must pay a cardsharper, but need not pay a tailor; that one must never lie to a man, but one may lie to a woman; that one must never cheat anyone, but one may a husband; that one must never pardon an insult, but one may give one, and so on."

We have a similar gentleman’s code, a “Westernized industrial power” code if you will, that operates the same way. In other words, our newspapers and TV stations may blather on a thousand times a day about attacking Iran and bombing its people, but if even one Iranian talks about fighting back, he is being “aggressive” and “threatening”; we can impose sanctions on anyone, but if the sanctioned country embargoes oil shipments to Europe in response, it’s being “belligerent,” and so on.

I’m not defending Achmedinejad, I think he’s nuts and a monstrous dick and I definitely don’t think he should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but to me this issue has little to do with Iran at all. What’s more troubling to me is that we’ve internalized this “gentleman’s code” to the point where its basic premises are no longer even debated.

Once upon a time, way back in the stone ages, when Noam Chomsky was first writing about these propaganda techniques in Manufacturing Consent, our leaders felt the need to conceal – or at least sugar-coat – these Orwellian principles. It was assumed that the American people genuinely needed to feel like they were on the right side of things, and so the foreign powers we clashed with were always depicted as being the instigators and aggressors, while our role in provoking those responses was always disguised or at least played down.

But now the public openly embraces circular thinking like, “Any country that squawks when we threaten to bomb it is a threat that needs to be wiped out.” Maybe I’m mistaken, but I have to believe that there was a time when ideas like that sounded weird to the American ear. Now they seem to make sense to almost everyone here at home, and that to me is just as a scary as Achmedinejad.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: No Mo Mo who wrote (60166)2/17/2012 8:24:13 PM
From: posthumousone
   of 102550
 
latimes.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: James Hutton who wrote (60162)2/17/2012 8:25:04 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™
9 Recommendations   of 102550
 
he can't take the loss as described. and yes, trader status would mean, wash sales never apply ever.

they knew when they changed the reporting laws.. fuck all, especially to the private investor, for lack of another word for the ever negatively connotated, "retail" investor.


i do hope everyone as it were, finally leaves this shit hole platform called, trading, over the last 30 years in this country. it's bankrupt. and this latest change, is just one more tax grab, and stab, in the barely beating heart of independent investing in this country.


if you ever thought you should leave it, last year's reporting change should have been a welcome sign for getting on the departure ship..


if it is news to you now.. you're late of course.

USA is a complete cesspool for any investment strategy.


absolute Shit.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)


To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (60168)2/17/2012 8:42:19 PM
From: posthumousone
1 Recommendation   of 102550
 
that makes no sense that you can't take the loss when you finally dispose of the stock. I do not have the stock a year later let alone 31 days after the last sell.

the govt needs a big shake down in the mkt to collect on the past years gains!!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Les H who wrote (60160)2/17/2012 8:50:07 PM
From: posthumousone
6 Recommendations   of 102550
 
i suppose the govt really wants inflation because then when wage inflation takes hold (and it will) it will bump people up to higher tax brackets and bring in more revenue
right?

Let's make sure public employees get their raises first!!! puke
Chicago teachers want 30% raises...

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.