Is it a wash trade if I short a stonk, cover for a loss, then go long the same ticker within 30 days of covering? And vice versa.
I’m not sure what the second long has anything to do with it. If the short and cover are within 30 days, then it should be a wash. Same as if you bought first and then sold within 30 days. And if they aren’t, then the second long isn’t either.
I’m just guessing here. I’m not a taxbro.
Doubt it. I’d bet that if would be a wash if you close the short and then open the same short (or substantially similar one).
Think this answers the question:
Not a wash. It would be a wash sale if you re-shorted the stock though.
That would be the intuitive and logical answer, but JonnyA’s link (which I was just about to post) says otherwise. Their table says re-shorting OR going long would trigger a wash trade. They didn’t provide a source, though.
What’s more bizarre is that the table above it says the vice versa situation isn’t a wash sale, ie going long and then going short. Why on hell would the rule be asymmetrical?
It’s only if you re-short.
Here’s the source:
Page 57.
That table just has to be wrong since it’s not consistent with the text.
Doh, I didn’t realize that pdf covered everything and not just deferrals.
Yeah, the pdf doesn’t say anything about a position reversal being a wash sale, so you and Bobman must be right and the site’s table is wrong.
Thanks all.
Apparently there’s some concern that the short-to-long situation is a wash:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3484&context=faculty_scholarship
But that’s so dumb that I can’t imagine anyone treats it that way.
1 Like
I gotta say these Uber leaks are basically the least surprising shit I’ve ever read. My perspective on that company went from slightly sour to massive massive skepticism about them being anything but a giant scam being perpetrated on the Saudi’s after seeing how they operated inside my own industry.
It was like the question they had asked in the meeting was ‘where can we buy junk revenue’ with exactly the same inflection as someone asking where they could buy bot farm page views.
For Uber’s core “ride sharing” business that built their brand, they definitely capitalized on decades of accumulated consumer frustration with cab companies and their monopoly. Even after all these years the Uber app and product for a basic car ride still beats licensed taxis, even where the taxi companies have tried to set up some kind of app to at least pretend to be modern.
Right they picked a difficult low margin business with a bad relationship with its customers and bought some revenue. They behaved like scammers with basically every person they encountered (even the customers who were basically cut in on the scam because the point of the scam was to buy revenue that they were providing).
I agree that the taxi industry sucked and needed to be modernized, but whether there was a capitalist case for spending the money to modernize it? There were probably another 20-30 years worth of tread left on that particular market vehicle. It would have been modernized when it became incredibly cheap/easy to do so basically.
The entire automation side of their pitch is a fantasy. They aren’t in any danger of building an autonomous car and the companies that are have zero reason to share any of the resulting profit with Uber. It’s literally just a map app with some basic pricing algorithms running in the background. And it’s a much worse map app than Google maps.
1 Like
I always wondered what the alternate reality would look like where Uber just decided to become an app company with existing cab companies as their customers. Of course they never would have achieved the same ridiculous valuations and the executives wouldn’t have gotten as rich but maybe they build a quiet monopoly while actually improving the cab industry or something.
That’s what would have happened in a world where VC worked the way it claims it does. In real life VC’s pass on that business to invest in Uber because it has ‘more upside’ because it could grow to be bigger. VC’s aren’t trying to build viable businesses that make money they’re trying to either threaten one of the existing tech companies and get acquired or create a shiny bauble that they can exit with an IPO.
1 Like
don’t have the article but from edmunds “A record 12.7% of people who took out a loan on a new car last month agreed to a monthly payment of at least $1,000”
we’ve gotta be far, far dumber with money than we used to be as a society
It’s a critical tenet to the us economy being the ‘greateat’ on earth!
No it’s always been this way it’s just that a generation ago everyone got bailed out by a pension at the end of their decades of stupid
2 Likes
did people have truck payments higher than their house a generation ago?
if so I yield the point
also sounds like a you might be a redneck joke
1 Like
$1000 ain’t what it used to be, but I really do wonder about people. Maybe it’s just been too long since we lived through a recession or people are too used to the government and the fed bailing them out of any pain during economic troubles. We have 1 car for 3 drivers in my family. I’ve literally been sitting on the sidelines for 10 months because I won’t pay the current prices for a car and I could pay cash if I want to.
The big mystery to me of our current inflation woes is that everyone everywhere seems to be bitching about it but it feels like no one else is spending less in response to rising prices. No wonder they keep going up
1 Like
That’s something my BIL, a flat earther, would Tweet. Big oof.