lnofeisone

Nice red herring there. That's why I said 1) sell the stock 2) buy the calls. Those two steps constitute a covered call transaction (sell side of it). In either case, that transactions triggers a wash sale and subsequent purchases are fine. IRS publication provides 0 evidence to the contrary. A Deloitte partner says so. I'm open to evidence of the contrary.

@ERICOPOLY @Mephistopheles I realize that it may feel intuitive and very logical to assume this but that's just not how the tax code is written. In essence, the second transaction creates a covered call and is excepted from loss deferral rules. Furthermore, the 2nd purchase doesn't constitute a successor position and thus not a wash sale by definition. I guess the one addendum to the calls argument I would make is to make sure you have qualified covered calls. Here is an actual IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p550.pdf Page 59 "Exceptions. The loss deferral rules do not apply to: 1. Positions established after October 21, 2004, comprising an identified straddle; 2. Certain straddles consisting of qualified covered call options and the stock to be purchased under the options;" The second purchase of a lot doesn't meet the requirement of a successor position as it fails to meet both requirements (page 60 - Successor Position).

Does anyone have an official IRS Guidance they can provide? I've read that one a lot and never seen a transitive property that's being suggested. Also: "However, the government states that the sale of an equity and the purchase of a call option on that equity does actually trigger a wash sale. Ironically selling a call for a loss and then buying the underlying stock does not." and " A partner at Deloitte suggested to us a three-step process to take a loss while not substantially disturbing alpha. Step 1: Sell XYZ for a $15 loss. Step 2: Buy the call option for $3. Step 3: Buy back the stock." https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/strategies-help-clients-around-wash-sale-rule-2015-11-10 Edit for grammar and another pertinent paragraph.

No. You need the calls to capture the loss and tied up your first lot to the calls. The question will be related to the calls (substantially identical security) and not the second lot. The fool.com article doesn't conflict with this.

Do you have any Do you have any IRS publications to back this up? I have never heard of wash sale rules have transitive properties like that.

No. The shares you are holding now, if you match them exactly to your options (so say you have 300 shares that you sell and you buy 3 calls), that's a wash sale. Once you sell your calls, you get your loss. Buying a new lot of shares doesn't tie your new shares to your old shares. Your calls have already done that. This is almost the same as doubling down. There is nothing in the IRS docs that I've seen that contradicts this. If anyone knows, do let me know. If you want, try simulating this transaction in the TurboTax and see what happens. Does this violate the letter of the law, likely not. Spirit of the law, absolutely. But you did ask how to avoid a wash sale rule .

The strategy pupil is describing is called doubling down. There is another strategy (this isn't a recommendation, please verify with your CPA and do your homework ) 1) Sell your stock at a loss (say you lost $10/share) 2) Buy a call option - you can buy a deep in the money call (say, $15). You have now triggered a washsale. Meaning you can't take a loss on your stock but your cost basis for the call has gone up to $25/share. 3) Buy your stock back 4) Sell the call at a loss This is a way to keep your shares and keeping your loss. The biggest disadvantage of this strategy is matching your tax rate (i.e., it's not idea if you held a stock for more than a year).

Ha - just saw someone getting 100 (looks like a 90 and another 10 contracts) 7.5C at 1.90. I'm assuming it was you. Curious who is selling these though.

Tiny BABA starter.

Greg - great question. I work a fair amount with UI (mostly on the fraud side) and I see this a lot. Few comments: Let me start by saying that there have been a couple of UI studies done and they showed absolutely no cause and effect between UI (including increased Federal payments) and people going back to work. Most of the recovery has been in the lower payment band of jobs. If someone can point me to another study, I'd love to read it. As far as tighter labor markets, there is a confluence of things: 1) There have been excess retirement across the board in all job sectors for workers 55 and older (across college degree spectrums, i.e., no degree to advanced degree). Way in excess of what was expected (https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/jobs-report/the-pandemic-retirement-surge-increased-retirement-inequality) 2) Most gains in jobs post-pandemic have been in the hospitality industry. I recall seeing that L&H lost about 8 million jobs (about 50%) and currently sits at at -2 million from pre-pandemic, so figure 70-80% of lost jobs have been recovered. This is a good place to look at the recovery. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/08/the-recovery-in-leisure-and-hospitality-employment/ 3) Most jobs where you see help wanted are low(er) paying jobs with most not offering health insurance. So in essence, it's a high risk job with a low pay and no health insurance. If I am a child (or parent thereof) or a worker with an option such as UI, I am making a rational risk-adjusted decision and staying home. 4) Women without children was one of the strongest demographics to rebound from job losses but have trailed off. Women with children have seen a rebound (not as strong) but are now leaving the workforce. Likely the result of focusing on children's education, crazy hours demanded by employers, and having spouses earn enough to afford single income home.

Joining you all on the CLPR (7.5) and AIV (5) train via march options. Filled CLPR but waiting on AIV.

Sold 1/2 of the position at 0.75. Will ride the rest into expy. Unclear what's going on with TGP but it's uncorrelated with either shippers or natty.

Sold by ABNB. Just raising $.

Bought some super cheap TGP 17.5 nov calls 0.25. Lotto size position.

The original question was how much $ was someone getting. Rent is an expense so not paying rent it would need to be recast as "money not spent."

Those are the puts I hold

The general answer to your question is no. The average unemployed person gets nowhere near that. $4-$5k represents the top amount someone can receive in State + Federal support. Keep in mind, the range is from $0 to $5k and to get to $5k, you have to lose a job that would be paying more than that. Most unemployment insurance (UI) programs also have a limit on number of weeks you will be supported. To more nuanced answer to your question is - it will depend on the state/commonwealth where you are. Massachusetts has the highest rate for UI - up to $800/week or so but you have to lose a 85k/year job to get it. If you lose 50k/year job, you'll get about $500 or so. With CARES act Federal "bonus" was $600 but is now down to $300 so if you lose a $100k job, you will get about $1.1k/week or about $60k in unemployment. Arizona is bottom of the barrel when it comes to UI. I think they pay something like $250/week. With CARES act addition, you get to $550/week or about $26k/year, if you lose a $100k/year job.

We are about to graduate to the land of SUVs as well. 2021 VW Tiguan is our current front runner on practical and value. I don't believe there is a hybrid of it in the US. Others we tried are X5, Honda CRV, Kia Sorento, Nissan Rogue. X5 is my personal favorite but the price is holding me back. Nissan Rogue is probably the worst car I've driven in a long time.

Greg - I'd like to see that scenario. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if PTON dips sub $100 and genuinely shocked if it touches May lows. Waiting for people to turn rational has been a fool's game for the last 10 years.

i think strong market is propping up PTON today. I was expecting/hoping for a bigger drop.

Bought back a starter of KNOP and some UNG puts.

As someone that dated girls in south Brooklyn (Seagate, BB, and Manhattan Beach), Manhattan Beach is where you want to be. Brighton Beach is like APTS...the potential/value is there but the management is taking their sweet time to get where we all want to end up.

I don't know if I would call the results published in the article bs. I think this is one of those things where it's helpful to distinguish probability and outcome. The article just shows a possible pathway. It doesn't assign probabilities to that pathway. There is clearly another pathway, i.e., unvaccinated people getting delta. So if you assign 0.001% probability to former and 99.999% to the latter, you get closer to the observations you see in the real world (i.e., most dead people are unvaccinated).

We really liked Atypial. The last season was meh (felt like writers lost focus and had too many stories they tried to develop) but overall very solid.

sold my KWEB and UNG puts.