Cost basis allocation question: GM bonds conversion to stock & warrants
This is a bit complicated because of all the moving parts, but is a little simpler because the two warrants are now publicly traded.  The main rule appears to be that your cost should be apportioned into the bases for the pieces you received by the proportions of the prices established in the market on the first day of trading in which they trade separately (source: costbasis.com).  Since the A and B GM warrants began trading in March 2011 (at least that's what a quick search shows), use their prices and the GM price on the same day to establish the proportions.  You also must include the factor of how much of each piece you received for each of your bonds. So, for example, if the prices of GM, WSA, and WSB, were $32, $23, and $17 on the first day of trading, and you got 3 shares GM, 2 A warrants, and 1 B warrant for your bonds, their worth on first day of separate trading would be: and so the proportion of your bond cost to be allocated to your A warrants, for instance, would be 46/159 or about 28.9% using these example figures. The small dribbles of additional securities you have received already, I would include in the calculation above, and if you in the future receive any further dribbles, I would assign them a basis of $0 (as your full bond cost would have already been completely allocated). I found additional evidence on TDAmeritrade's website that helps confirm that the 3/17/11 prices Jason found are the ones to use since all three were traded on that day.  Although GM+A had prices and trading as early as 2/28/11, GM+B's price and trading shows up no earlier than 3/14/11, but there was no trading indicated for GM+A on 3/14 so 3/14 can't be used.  The two warrants were not traded every day after they came out. The next date that I found when all three, GM, GM+A and GM+B had trades was 4/11/11.  I found Google and Yahoo Finance unable to produce the historical prices for the warrants that far back.  Unfortunately, you need to be a TDA accountholder in order to access TDA's historical price information for stocks. Because the distribution date was APR 21, 2011, THAT should be the correct date for ascertainng the stock prices of the GM stock and warrants.  The subsequent distributions after April should also be allocated in accordance with their distribution dates, with tax basis being reduced from the original APR 21st date's allocations, and reallocated to those subsequent distributions, taking into account any interim sales you might have made. Your final tax basis could not be determined until June 14, 2012, the first day of separate trading of all four securities that you received from the GM bankruptcy reorganization.
You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates.  If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer.   In a comment, you proposed:   Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought  Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true.  And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs.   Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs.  So this isn't exactly a free lunch either.  But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held.  Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever.  Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax.   This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact. I am not a tax professional, only an investment professional, so please take the following with a grain of salt and simply as informational guidance, not a personal recommendation or solicitation to buy/sell any security or as personal tax or investment advice. As Ross mentioned, you need to consult a tax advisor for a final answer concerning your friend's personal circumstances. In my experience advising hundreds of clients (and working directly with their tax advisors) the cost basis is used to calculate tax gain or loss on ordinary investments in the US. It appears to me that the Edward Jones description is correct. This has also been the case for me personally in the US with a variety of securities--stocks, options, futures, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds.  From the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-form-1099b Form 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions A broker or barter exchange must file this form for each person: Edward Jones should be able to produce a 1099b documenting the gains/losses of any investments. If the 1099b document is confusing, they might have a gain/loss report that more clearly delineates proceeds, capital returns, dividends, and other items related to the purchase and sale of securities. This is great! I'm not a CPA, but work in finance. As such, my course/professional work is focused more on the economic and profitability aspects of transfer pricing. As you might imagine, it tended to analyze corporate strategy decisions under various cost allocation models, which you thoroughly discuss.  I would agree with the statement that it is based on the matching principle but would like to add that transfer pricing is interesting as it falls under several fields: accounting, finance, and economics. Fundamentally it is based on the matching principal, but it's real world applications are based on all three (it's often used to determine divisional and even individual sales peoples profitability; as is the case with bank related funds transfer pricing on stuff like time deposits). In this case, the correct accounting principal allows you to, when done properly, better understand the economics, strategy, and operations of an organization.   In effect, when done correctly, it provides transparency for strategic decision making to executives. As I said, since my coursework tended to focus more on that aspect, I definitely have a natural tendency towards it.  This is an amazing explanation (esp. about interest on M&amp;A bridge loans, I get that) of the more detailed stuff! Truthfully, I'm not as familiar with it and was just trying to show more of the conceptual than nitty-gritty.   Thanks for the reply! "There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in ""street name"" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you  figured out the relevant date, contact the company's ""investor relationships"" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers." "The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices.  This is what is called the ""generic"" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period.  You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market.  So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the ""4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019"".  The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27.  This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Here, the ""nominal price"" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date.   Note that the title of the bond indicates a ""nominal"" yield of 4.25%.  This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%.  In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25.  This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27.   It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story.  In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond.  If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold.  When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield.  In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB.  The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics." Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000.  If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares.  The price in the market is unimportant.  Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense.  It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction.  It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares.  Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased.  Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price.  Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege.   I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense.  It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2.  The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment. The default is FIFO: first in - first out. Unless you specifically instruct the brokerage otherwise, they'll report that the lot you've sold is of Jan 5, 2011. Note, that before 2011, they didn't have to report the cost basis to the IRS, and it would be up to you to calculate the cost basis at tax time, but that has been changed in 2011 and you need to make sure you've instructed the brokerage which lot exactly you're selling. I'm assuming you're in the US, in other places laws may be different. No. If you didn't specify LIFO on account or sell by specifying the shares you wish sold, then the brokers method applies.  From Publication 551 Identifying stock or bonds sold.   If you can adequately identify the   shares of stock or the bonds you sold, their basis is the cost or   other basis of the particular shares of stock or bonds. If you buy and   sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot   adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities   you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. For more   information about identifying securities you sell, see Stocks and   Bonds under Basis of Investment Property in chapter 4 of Pub. 550. The trick is to identify the stock lot prior to sale. Thanks. I was trying to keep it pretty simple.  I would mostly agree with you, and 100% on the first part. That gets as much into cost allocation methods as anything else though (a topic I just didn't feel like going into haha. You could do a whole managerial accounting course on it).   My caveat is the only time when C-suites screw up transfer pricing and division economics are if they don't fully understand the cost allocation going on behind the scenes. I've seen too many get bogged down with analysts pressing against unprofitable divisions without FULLY taking into account the intricacies of various costing methods (some of which are better than others!).  I think 90% of the time the C-suite gets it. I've just seen a number (ESP small companies) who don't, and end up really screwing things up.  Again though, GE is the master of accounting. "They do not. M&amp;A execution is housed within industry coverage groups; there's no separate group that executes. They have a group called ""M&amp;A"" that advises on tax structuring, anti-raid, and other assorted issues (e.g. MASA) but they don't run the model and they're not really executing. Most of the people there are ex-lawyers or experienced bankers.  Trust me on this, if you tell someone at GS you're interested in working in the M&amp;A group, you're not getting an offer." Okay- I follow that.    When we look a shorting a name -  what makes that an equity transaction rather than a debt one? I guess how does that differ from investing in a bond?    I recognize the simplicity of this question.    Thanks. "During GM's Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, a new company was formed, with new stock.  The old General Motors Corporation was renamed to ""Motors Liquidation Company,"" and the new company was named ""General Motors Company.""  The new company purchased some of the assets from the old company, and the old company was left to sell off the remaining assets and settle the debts. None of the stock transferred from the old company to the new one; if you were a GM stockholder of the old company and didn't sell, it is now worthless. When the new company formed, the stock was not traded publicly.  The company was primarily owned by the United States and Canadian governments; together, they owned 72.5%.  In 2010, GM had an IPO, and the US government sold most of their stake.  By the end of 2013, the US government sold the remaining stake; the government no longer has any ownership in GM. When we talk about voting rights for stockholders, we are mainly talking about voting for the members of the board of directors.  And yes, the government did indeed have a hand in selecting the board of the new company.  The Treasury Department selected 10 members of the board, and the Canadian government selected 1 member.  There were 19 board members total. (Source) Unlike some companies, there are not ""voting"" and ""non-voting"" classes of GM stock.  All the shares sold by the US government are voting shares. Additional Sources:" "at $8.50:  total profit = $120.00 *basis of stock, not paid in cash, so not included in ""total paid"" at $8.50: total profit = $75.00" "Thanks for the response.   I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc.  Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info?  filtering out the ""recent equity issuance or M&amp;A activity exceeding 10% of total assets"" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&amp;A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged" The average price would be $125 which would be used to compute your basis. You paid $12,500 for the stock that is now worth $4,500 which is a loss of $8,000 overall if you sell at this point.