maybe4less

If I recall correctly, 13Gs only have to be updated once a year unless the ownership changes more than 500 basis points.

In a summary judgement hearing, the judge considers only facts that are undisputed by both sides. If, given those facts, the judge accepts the arguments of the party making the motion, then that side "wins" and there is no trial. If the judge rejects the motion for summary judgement, then you probably go on to trial. In other words, if the defendant makes a motion for summary judgement that is denied, we still go to trial. Can the judge still deny it if asked by both parties like in this filing? I think in this case, each party is filing their own, separate motions for summary judgement (MSJs). The judge couldn't practically accept both, but both could be denied, and then we'd go to trial.

In a summary judgement hearing, the judge considers only facts that are undisputed by both sides. If, given those facts, the judge accepts the arguments of the party making the motion, then that side "wins" and there is no trial. If the judge rejects the motion for summary judgement, then you probably go on to trial. In other words, if the defendant makes a motion for summary judgement that is denied, we still go to trial.

I'm not Cherzca, but summary judgement always comes before a trial. If the motion for summary judgement is accepted, the judge can make a ruling, avoiding a trial.

Well, that blog post was a whole lot of nothing.

Not anymore for US stocks. Very annoyingly, they increased the cap to 1% earlier this year. Don't understand how they think they can be raising prices when their competitors are all lowering prices.

You're just personally out of luck here if you miss out on the upside. Clients have to come first and you'll get your fees anyway. If you miss out on the downside and your clients don't, well, you made a mistake. That is the risk the clients are taking.

What Hielko said. Same issue with selling: sell yours first or clients' first? Both could lead to better/worse results for clients. Ultimately it's an issue of trust: either your clients trust you or they don't. If they don't, doing the right things may help but may not. If a client wants to distrust you, they can always find a reason. The industry standard is that clients accounts are traded first. This is enshrined in regulations and in things like the CFA rules. It doesn't matter whether the client gets a better price or not: you can't control that. All you can do is trade for them first and avoid front-running.

Makes sense, yes, but his trade war is not consistent with the thesis.

I believe this was the case at IB, but not at other brokers (Schwab and Fidelity).

CNTWW was the stock that prompted some broker soul-searching for me too. On fidelity, you can buy CNTWW but not CNTE. They won't let you buy microcaps with no financials, though their warrants are totally fair game. On IBKR, you can buy CNTE but not CNTWW. CNTWW trades on some grey sheets that IBKR does not have access to. I think my only solution is to have several brokerages accounts open (I have Schwab and Etrade as well) and to shuffle around money to whichever broker will allow me to execute. FWIW, I have US accounts and was able to buy CNTWW at IB and CNTE at Fidelity.

Former neuroscientist here with friends who study psychopaths: FWIW, they tell me that sociopath is not a technical term. They only refer to psychopaths.

Why are you discounting Ike in 2008? Also, a little disingenuous to exclude Sandy. It hit the US mainland with hurricane force winds and is apparently the fourth costliest storm on record.

The Old Reader works well for me.

Did the new tax law do away with the step up in basis on death? On the old tax law a gift is valued at the donor's cost basis, but at market value if passed on at death (inherited) The step-up basis on death for inherited property still exists. However, I believe there is still no step-up for property gifted by someone who is living.

Can you elaborate on this or point me to the original post of Ericopoly? I'm trying to figure out a way to hedge the gain on bank stocks. Dealing with (maybe not hedging per se though) the gain on bank stocks (specifically BAC) is exactly the problem Ericopoly was trying to solve. In order to avoid a large capital gains tax bill, but still take money out of your portfolio with this strategy, you first must make sure you have a Portfolio Margin account (as opposed to the standard Reg-T margin account). My understanding is that Portfolio Margin will look at different offsetting positions when determining whether or not to make a margin call. For example, if you buy at-the-money puts that cover your bank stock, any decline in the stock should be more or less offset by the gain in the puts. Portfolio margin will give you credit for the gain in the puts, while Reg-T will not. Once you have your appreciated stock protected with puts, you can remove cash from the account by borrowing on margin. Hopefully, the puts expire worthless and you get a tax write-off. Rinse and repeat by buying more puts. If the puts appreciate in value due to a steep decline, sell them and reduce your margin borrowing. If the stock continues to appreciate, your margin borrowing ability grows.

Interactive Brokers let an American citizen friend of mine in Dubai open an account. I would try it. My guess is it depends on what country you are located in.

I believe Ericopoly solved this problem a number of years ago. Open a Portfolio Margin account somewhere (I know Interactive Brokers works), buy puts to cover your appreciated position, and then withdraw cash on margin.

I thought about using the algo, but didn't quite understand how it worked. Your description makes it sounds pretty appealing. One question I have about your previous practice: when you set your limit orders, did you iceberg them to show only a certain number of shares at a time or did you just leave it showing the whole order? I'm wondering if someone can still see your whole order even if you iceberg. Thanks

I don't know about TD, but my (anecdotal) experience has been that order execution is best at IB, a little worse at ML, and worse again at Schwab, Scottrade, and Fidelity. Presumably TD is also in that last category.

This seems the most likely to me. They build great products, but haven't yet figured out how to sell them for more than it costs them to make them. They burned $1+ billion prior to the acquisition of Solar City and that was burning $1+ billion too. All of the Musk companies seem like a giant circle jerk - they're buying one another, being the largest investor in the bonds of one another, propping up one another, etc. all while each loses money. These things are only floated at the goodwill of shareholders/debt holders who don't seem to care that the companies, in their current form, or totally unsustainable. If the whole things works, they'll likely end up as powerhouses within their respective industries. If even a singel thing goes wrong at one, it's possible that it brings all 3 down. Yeah, Whose lending Tesla $2 billion during a recession? If credit creation slightly slips its a dead man walking. I think the question is probably, who is buying Tesla in a recession? Could easily see one of the big tech firms buying Tesla if Elon gets desperate and can no longer fund operations.

What did you do to prepare? This is not an issue I've thought enough about. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

I think that's only for Indian residents...

Huge fan! Never thought about his writings or work in the context of investing. Where do you see the strongest connection?

Great commentary and insight, thanks. What is this single big risk to using CMBX to short retail that you are referring to?