Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, chet said:

I kind of did.  I sold 80k shares at 9.80 and bought back at 5.90.

Thanks for the heads up GB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chet makes a quick day trade and orders a Ferrari 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

I guess I just don't understand how that works.

I know you can short a stock and make money if the stock goes down and then you exit.  Apparently I don't understand how you can manipulate the stock price doing that.  

I was under the impression 9 million shares were sold all at once.  Again, if they didn't own the stock, how were 9 million sold

You really need to google it and read up on shorts and manipulation. And then understand that every small biopharma stock seems to always have these crazy moves with shorts. You can't even go to some of their message boards due to the volume of just #### talking.

I happen to have NWBO at the moment due to a non-FBG ""tip". In no way an endorsement, I strictly bought with gamble money and expect to lose it all. The short news makes it impossible to filter the actual news. Something about curing brain cancer.

Between them and CYDY nearly everything will be cured or at least treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

I guess I just don't understand how that works.

I know you can short a stock and make money if the stock goes down and then you exit.  Apparently I don't understand how you can manipulate the stock price doing that.  

I was under the impression 9 million shares were sold all at once.  Again, if they didn't own the stock, how were 9 million sold

They borrowed 9 Million shares and sold them all at once.  The sell price probably ranged from $9.50 - $6.50.  They would probably stop at this point and let investor fear bring it down even further.  They then start buying back in the $4-6 range.  

If they make $2 on each share, that would be an 18M profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearraid.asp - This sounds pretty familiar.

Quote

Understanding a Bear Raid

The objective of a bear raid is usually to make windfall profits in a brief time period through short sales. If the bear raid works and the target stock plunges, short sellers can buy the shares back cheaply on the open market. The short sellers make money by selling the shares first, at what they believe is a high price, and then buying them back to close out their position at a lower price. The short sellers profit on the difference, such as selling when the price is at $100 and buying back at $75, making a quick 25% profit.

In a typical bear raid, short sellers may collude beforehand to establish massive short positions in the target stock. Since the huge short interest in the stock increases the risk of a short squeeze that can inflict substantial losses on the shorts, the short sellers cannot afford to wait patiently for months until their short strategy works out.

So they embark on the next step in the bear raid which is akin to a smear campaign, with whispers and rumors about the company spread by unknown sources. These rumors can be anything that portrays the target company in a negative light, such as allegations of accounting fraud, an SEC investigation, an earnings miss, financial difficulties, and so on. The rumors may cause nervous investors to exit the stock in droves, driving the price down further and giving the short sellers the profit they are looking for.

The repeal of the uptick rule in July 2007 is regarded by some experts as having made it easier for short sellers to embark on bear raids. The collapse or near-collapse of a number of leading financial institutions in 2008 is attributed in some circles to bear raids.

While bear raids may involve collusion and false rumors, which is illegal, there are also legal bear raids which is when a large number of people (or a few people) start shorting a large amount stock due to their concern with a company. They may also voice their legitimate concerns. As long as the information is not intentionally false and the shorts are not colluding with each other, a stock may see downward pressure due to the selling and increasing negative news. Many people will refer to this natural market behavior as a bear raid.

 

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, ConstruxBoy said:

But if you own a stock you can recover some of your outlay (or more) along the way. 

I understand and agree with much of what you say.  My cost basis at this point is just about zero - actually it's exactly $1,550.  I'm willing to lose that, though I don't see much chance of going to zero.  Just to be clear - I've lost $1500 on way stupider #### than this thing.  There was some OTC stuff I bought in 2000 that is just embarrassing to think about.  And my short foray into sports betting parlays in 2007.  Yeah, I'm getting a bit less stupid.

The vast majority of my purchases are boring stuff like PPL (thanks Todem).  

Edited by Sand
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

I guess I just don't understand how that works.

I know you can short a stock and make money if the stock goes down and then you exit.  Apparently I don't understand how you can manipulate the stock price doing that.  

I was under the impression 9 million shares were sold all at once.  Again, if they didn't own the stock, how were 9 million sold

Well shorting the stock consists of you selling stock that you don't own. So where do the shares come from? They're borrowed from you or I. An institution will lend someone our shares which will then be sold to someone. So in theory, you could own my shares or I yours. And they essentially just created new shares. So we would both 'own' the same security but the short seller would be on the hook for the other side of one of those transactions. I have a feeling that will either make sense or make it even more confusing. 

I have heard that putting in ridiculous limit sell orders keeps brokerages from being able to lend shares. Maybe we all should have done that. 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

How often does stuff like that happen with a coordinated short attack?

Already happened a couple of months ago with guys who weren't as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

I guess I just don't understand how that works.

I know you can short a stock and make money if the stock goes down and then you exit.  Apparently I don't understand how you can manipulate the stock price doing that.  

Selling a million (or 9) shares moves the needle.

If you’ve seen Trading Places, Dan and Eddie basically did the same thing. They sold orange contracts high and then bought contracts way low after the bad news. They didn’t own orange contracts before they sold them but that’s why they had to buy later so they could settle and bankrupt the Dukes who weren’t able to settle their contracts. Now Dan and Eddie were at least not spreading false info, they just had the crop report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

I guess I just don't understand how that works.

I know you can short a stock and make money if the stock goes down and then you exit.  Apparently I don't understand how you can manipulate the stock price doing that.  

I was under the impression 9 million shares were sold all at once.  Again, if they didn't own the stock, how were 9 million sold

Because the brokers had them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Otis said:

Thanks for the heads up GB. 

You mean the several times I told you to buy at $0.30?  NO PROBLEM

  • Laughing 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the VWAP (volume-weighted average price) from when the short attack started. But I think someone here said the VWAP for today was in the $7s. So while the stock dropped to sub 5 quickly, let's assume the average share price that they sold 9 million shares was $7. So for every $1 below $7 that they purchased shares at, they've made a $1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sporthenry said:

Well shorting the stock consists of you selling stock that you don't own. So where do the shares come from? They're borrowed from you or I. An institution will lend someone our shares which will then be sold to someone. So in theory, you could own my shares or I yours. And they essentially just created new shares. So we would both 'own' the same security but the short seller would be on the hook for the other side of one of those transactions. I have a feeling that will either make sense or make it even more confusing. 

I have heard that putting in ridiculous limit sell orders keeps brokerages from being able to lend shares. Maybe we all should have done that. 

Soooooooo do rich people just do this all the time to get a lot richer?   If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

Soooooooo do rich people just do this all the time to get a lot richer?   If not, why not?

Do you know these guys?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand how shorting works.  What I don't understand is how placing a short can drop the price of the stock.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sand said:

Do you know these guys?

I already covered that a few posts up as the ending of that movie is exactly what happened today sans the false rumors and for oranges instead of LeBronLimeade.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

Soooooooo do rich people just do this all the time to get a lot richer?   If not, why not?

Well it's a bit skeazy / sleazy to do. It will only really work on lower volume stocks. You'd need a Fed balance sheet to do it on AAPL or TSLA. You can get burned doing it. But there are probably a lot of wealthy folks who do this on both sides. The same folks who pump a stock are also likely to be the ones who lead a dump. They just play with stocks with irregular volume. I don't think it's too scalable so major HFs likely can't run a strategy based completely off this although I'm sure some do stuff similar to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, sporthenry said:

Well it's a bit skeazy / sleazy to do. It will only really work on lower volume stocks. You'd need a Fed balance sheet to do it on AAPL or TSLA. You can get burned doing it. But there are probably a lot of wealthy folks who do this on both sides. The same folks who pump a stock are also likely to be the ones who lead a dump. They just play with stocks with irregular volume. I don't think it's too scalable so major HFs likely can't run a strategy based completely off this although I'm sure some do stuff similar to it. 

If it only really works on lower volume stocks how did it work here?  Wasn't there a crap ton of shares being moved for days now?

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rascal said:

I understand how shorting works.  What I don't understand is how placing a short can drop the price of the stock.  

When you dump 9 million shares in a period of less than a minute, the share price will plummet due to too much supply and insufficient folks willing to pay top dollar for it.  As fewer and fewer folks will buy, the price goes down until a floor of some sort is hit where folks are willing to pay to consume the shares being sold.  Once the share price has been knocked way down and they've off-loaded the 9 million shares they borrowed, they commence to start buying them back at the now lower prices as the demand for buying stocks was filled by folks buying 9 million shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rascal said:

I understand how shorting works.  What I don't understand is how placing a short can drop the price of the stock.  

Well the average daily trading volume on CYDY is 7.8mn. I think someone in here said they unleashed 9 million shares. So you essentially flood the market with too many shares and buyers evaporate. It shows that the buyer base isn't as deep as we thought which isn't all that surprising given it's OTC and run up this far. Part of why an uplisting is important. 

But shorting a stock, especially in this size, floods the market. It'd be like 9x Chet selling all his shares. The market can't absorb it. Then it also trips a ton of sell limit orders which further perpetuates the problem. Heck, they probably only needed to sell 3-4 million and let the limit orders do the rest. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, adonis said:

When you dump 9 million shares in a period of less than a minute, the share price will plummet due to too much supply and insufficient folks willing to pay top dollar for it.  As fewer and fewer folks will buy, the price goes down until a floor of some sort is hit where folks are willing to pay to consume the shares being sold.  Once the share price has been knocked way down and they've off-loaded the 9 million shares they borrowed, they commence to start buying them back at the now lower prices as the demand for buying stocks was filled by folks buying 9 million shares.

So they sold 9 million shares then had to buy 9 million shares.

Why wouldn't this just raise the price right back up?  Or did they count on a lot of other people getting scared and selling dropping the price even further

Edit....yeah tripping a lot of stop loss orders I guess would force a lot more selling

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sporthenry said:

Well the average daily trading volume on CYDY is 7.8mn. I think someone in here said they unleashed 9 million shares. So you essentially flood the market with too many shares and buyers evaporate. It shows that the buyer base isn't as deep as we thought which isn't all that surprising given it's OTC and run up this far. Part of why an uplisting is important. 

But shorting a stock, especially in this size, floods the market. It'd be like 9x Chet selling all his shares. The market can't absorb it. Then it also trips a ton of sell limit orders which further perpetuates the problem. Heck, they probably only needed to sell 3-4 million and let the limit orders do the rest. 

Then you also time it with a negative article accusing the company of misdeeds and you're into an orchestrated short sale territory combined with propaganda designed to encourage more investors to doubt the stock further weakening folks desire to invest in the company, lengthening the time the shares stay at a reduced price.  So it was really a 1-2 punch today, with the flood of sold shares, then directly after with the negative press accusing the company and its leadership of trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, rascal said:

I understand how shorting works.  What I don't understand is how placing a short can drop the price of the stock.  

I think maybe we are both stuck on the idea that this is.........wrong, and shouldn't be how share price works.

I guess legal corruption is hard for some of us to understand.

 

Edited by ghostguy123
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

So they sold 9 million shares then had to buy 9 million shares.

Why wouldn't this just raise the price right back up?  Or did they count on a lot of other people getting scared and selling dropping the price even further

Edit....yeah tripping a lot of stop loss orders I guess would force a lot more selling

From what I was seeing the stock price was starting to climb back up and then the report came out accusing the company of all sorts of things, and the share prices dropped again.  It's a time of uncertainty for the company, and with such a huge drop in share prices suddenly, combined with a lot of negative accusations against the company, the demand was suppressed to a sufficient degree to keep the share prices from increasing much.

Happy to have someone with more knowledge than me on this correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

If it only really works on lower volume stocks how did it work here?

The average volume on CYDY is 7.8 million and that is after elevated volumes the past week or so. They unleashed 9 million so a day's worth in an hour. I guess the other issue is that it isn't a widely followed stock with an institutional base to support it. If someone tried doing this to BLMN, it may get you $0.50-$1 before someone would step in. But given this stock has run up 5x in a few weeks, they likely knew a lot of folks were jittery. Still OTC and while there are hints there is institutional buying, still not big enough to support it throughout all this. 

The attack also started at noon which is also after the Europe market is closed. I could be way off base but given this stock runs up in the pre-market, makes me think it's being driven by an investor in Europe so maybe they attacked it when they weren't trading. Could be wrong there but just a hypothesis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, think I understand it.  Why the ftc allow this?  Or is it only those who sell that are actually losing money (i.e. us average Joe's) and therefore they don't care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

I think maybe we are both stuck on the idea that this is.........wrong, and shouldn't be how share price works.

If there was collusion, and a smear campaign to drive prices down and keep them down, it's likely it was illegal.  If there was no collusion between the shorters (unlikely) and the views in the article that was released RIGHT when all this happened were legitimate and not fraudulent, then it was likely legal.

Sure seems there was collusion in shorting, and the article was just too well timed in conjunction with the huge shorts with a lot of poorly sourced innuendo to be legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, adonis said:

Then you also time it with a negative article accusing the company of misdeeds and you're into an orchestrated short sale territory combined with propaganda designed to encourage more investors to doubt the stock further weakening folks desire to invest in the company, lengthening the time the shares stay at a reduced price.  So it was really a 1-2 punch today, with the flood of sold shares, then directly after with the negative press accusing the company and its leadership of trouble.

Yeah that is usually the MO. I'd assume the price action initially was as good as they could have expected and likely covered a lot to start with. Then release that piece to drive it down further. Stock didn't completely crumble. Citron's piece was pretty fluff so not sure he is going to ride that short as long as Valeant. Given it seemed to find support at $5 and just ran to $10, I doubt they'll stay in the short very long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, would it be fair to say that this incident today probably doesn't affect the future price?  Say 6 months from now or a year from now?

If another company buys them out it sure might.  Maybe that is who shorted the #### out of it.  

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

If there was collusion, and a smear campaign to drive prices down and keep them down, it's likely it was illegal.  If there was no collusion between the shorters (unlikely) and the views in the article that was released RIGHT when all this happened were legitimate and not fraudulent, then it was likely legal.

Sure seems there was collusion in shorting, and the article was just too well timed in conjunction with the huge shorts with a lot of poorly sourced innuendo to be legitimate.

I mean Citron was likely one of the shorters, who released the report. I don't know where the line crosses into illegal. I'm sure culpepper and a few others were talking to Citron and convinced him to join. 

Like I said when we discussed Portnoy, I think this all would be cleared with greater disclosure. Anyone talking their book should be forced to disclose when they bought or sold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sporthenry said:

Yeah that is usually the MO. I'd assume the price action initially was as good as they could have expected and likely covered a lot to start with. Then release that piece to drive it down further. Stock didn't completely crumble. Citron's piece was pretty fluff so not sure he is going to ride that short as long as Valeant. Given it seemed to find support at $5 and just ran to $10, I doubt they'll stay in the short very long. 

Given the volume today I'd be surprised if they were still in the short.  Borrowing at 9+ and buying back anywhere between 4.5 and 6.7 would be some hefty profit for 9 million shares, and given the volume today they certainly could've picked them all back up.

To me, it screams of fraud primarily due to Citrion's piece coinciding too perfectly with the huge short sale.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, adonis said:

Given the volume today I'd be surprised if they were still in the short.  Borrowing at 9+ and buying back anywhere between 4.5 and 6.7 would be some hefty profit for 9 million shares, and given the volume today they certainly could've picked them all back up.

To me, it screams of fraud primarily due to Citrion's piece coinciding too perfectly with the huge short sale.  

So let's say this was indeed fraud, and was proven to be fraud tomorrow.

What would that mean for us?

Guessing nothing.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

So, would it be fair to say that this incident today probably doesn't affect the future price?  Say 6 months from now or a year from now?

We'll have clinical data, and possible uplisting, in a couple of weeks. Relax. Let's focus on our fractional jet ownership. ChetJets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question.  Why does everyone think it's manipulation when a stock goes down 40%, but not when it goes up 900% in a few months?

This isn't a bash on CYDY.  It happens with every stock when this happens.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

So, would it be fair to say that this incident today probably doesn't affect the future price?  Say 6 months from now or a year from now?

If another company buys them out it sure might.  Maybe that is who shorted the #### out of it.  

I mean if the drug works, then no, it won't impact it from a year. There wasn't really anything new in the piece. But it did reiterate some questions that still exist and are why it was a sub-$1 stock and trades OTC. Some of the stuff has seemingly been debunked but some of the corporate actions have been puzzling, to say the least.

But no, I can assure that a pharma company looking to buy it out wasn't shorting it. I'm almost sure that would be illegal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

So let's say this was indeed fraud, and was proven to be fraud tomorrow.

What would that mean for us?

Guessing nothing.

I'd say it's be reassuring in that the drop in share price was almost totally opportunism on the part of some bad actors looking to capitalize on a situation to make money, rather than any inherent weakness in the company, the product, or the potential down the road.  That would be good news.

If it turns out there are tons of investors with access to 9 million shares who have legitimate concerns about the viability of the company, or suspect fraud from company leadership or other stuff, that's more concerning.

But certainly seems to be more of the former, than than the latter at this point at least especially with Citrion basically retracting the article (after the damage had been done, mind you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ILUVBEER99 said:

Question.  Why does everyone think it's manipulation when a stock goes down 40%, but not when it goes up 900% in a few months?

This isn't a bash on CYDY.  It happens with every stock when this happens.

 

For the same reason people get angry at the Don't Pass Line guy on the craps table. I agree, that it's no different than a guy pumping and dumping a stock like Portnoy. Probably trading out of a stock five minutes after he mentions it. But there is something more acceptable about it being from the long side. 

I think short sellers get a bad rep but Left kinda loses the ability to ##### when he does #### like this. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ILUVBEER99 said:

Question.  Why does everyone think it's manipulation when a stock goes down 40%, but not when it goes up 900% in a few months?

This isn't a bash on CYDY.  It happens with every stock when this happens.

I consider it manipulation because it's basically gaming the system.  When you buy, you're generally hoping for increased returns in the future.

When you short 9 million shares (that you don't own but are borrowing for the purpose) of an OTC stock in a short amount of time and follow that up with a hit piece, the entire goal is to manipulate the price of the stock down artificially by flooding the market with shares and spreading bad news, such that you can sell your borrowed shares, and buy them back at a discount as you spread fear into others encouraging them to either sell their shares, hit their limits, or just step away due to the confusion being caused.

It's manipulation of the market imo.  It has little to do with the valuation of the company or any attempt at determining the market value for the company and investing or shorting accordingly.  Shorting is a valuable thing in the market, and helps markets be efficient.  But there are ways you can "short" that are considered security fraud by the SEC for good reason.  Colluding with a group of folks to all short at the same time, and spreading misinformation purposefully, are two things that seem to be indicators of fraud instead of more legitimate shorting behavior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: they can’t possibly f up the press conference tomorrow can they?

 

i mean all they have to do is talk about the Coordinated bear raid and the fact that there were bad actors that likely committed fraud And this “has” to rebound a bit.

be something if they just went ahead and announced (positive) results 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sporthenry said:

For the same reason people get angry at the Don't Pass Line guy on the craps table. I agree, that it's no different than a guy pumping and dumping a stock like Portnoy. Probably trading out of a stock five minutes after he mentions it. But there is something more acceptable about it being from the long side. 

I think short sellers get a bad rep but Left kinda loses the ability to ##### when he does #### like this. 

Pumping and dumping is also a form of securities fraud, no?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ILUVBEER99 said:

Question.  Why does everyone think it's manipulation when a stock goes down 40%, but not when it goes up 900% in a few months?

This isn't a bash on CYDY.  It happens with every stock when this happens.

 

My life on this board is proof people don't like contrarian points of view.  :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to grasp the short selling, but a couple of questions. 

So was the pump this week due to short sellers pumping up the stock or was that all regular investors? 

I guess the answer is a pump driven by the short sellers especially because there seemed to be purchases based on an algorithm. 

Second question to help crystallize it. Do short sellers have to slowly build their positions to pump up the stock price BEFORE the attack or can they just borrow 9 million shares out of thin air at their target price and then start the attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Ref said:

Q: they can’t possibly f up the press conference tomorrow can they?

 

i mean all they have to do is talk about the Coordinated bear raid and the fact that there were bad actors that likely committed fraud And this “has” to rebound a bit.

be something if they just went ahead and announced (positive) results 

You’re not familiar with management are you?  🤪

I’m hoping it is pre recorded and no q&a

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Ref said:

Q: they can’t possibly f up the press conference tomorrow can they?

 

i mean all they have to do is talk about the Coordinated bear raid and the fact that there were bad actors that likely committed fraud And this “has” to rebound a bit.

be something if they just went ahead and announced (positive) results 

oh god i bought back in not knowing there was another conf call.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Charlie Harper said:

I'm beginning to grasp the short selling, but a couple of questions. 

So was the pump this week due to short sellers pumping up the stock or was that all regular investors? 

I guess the answer is a pump driven by the short sellers especially because there seemed to be purchases based on an algorithm. 

Second question to help crystallize it. Do short sellers have to slowly build their positions to pump up the stock price BEFORE the attack or can they just borrow 9 million shares out of thin air at their target price and then start the attack?

They can borrow without building a position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that I fully understand how selling works, still being new to all of this):

I am in a Stock Exchange program through my company and have made 3 purchases: 12/31/2018, 06/28/2019 and 12/31/2019.

I am considering selling a few of the stocks from my 12/31/2018 or 06/28/2019 purchase as my understanding is that my earnings would be taxes at 15% vs. a higher rate for the more recent stocks that I had purchases.

If I sold 10 shares (the cost/basis per share was $62.48, holding period is LONG) from the 06/28/2019 purchase, the Long-Term Gain is $217.26. Would I pay taxes (15%) on the 217.26, meaning I would owe $32.59 in taxes in 2021?

If I sold 10 shares (the cost/basis per share was $48.28, holding period is LONG) from the 12/31/2018 purchase, the Long-Term Gain is $359.30. Would I pay taxes (15%) on the 217.26, meaning I would owe $53.90 in taxes in 2021?

Is the above correct? If so, does it make more sense to keep the shares I bought for $48.28 vs. the $62.48, correct?

Other questions:

For the 12/31/2018 purchase, I own 177 shares, the unrealized G/L is: $6359.61, and lot basis is $8545.56. I realize the lot basis is the cost of the stocks time the amount I paid, but how is the unrealized G/L and what does that mean to me ? Is the amount I would have to pay taxes on from the total amount of 177 shares that I own?

Thank you for your assistance. I am trying to further diversify my portfolio and am trying to understand tax implications for 2021 before I make any moves. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how the lawyers are lining up saying that Citron financial released said article and the stock plummeted 35% in a day and if it impacted you to call us..........

 

..... so we can sue CYDY.

hey jerk face - I want to sue Citron

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bshell27 said:

Oh crap.  Prepping for another free fall now.  Send out anybody but him.  

Buy opportunity 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.