With respect to my portfolio, my trip was ill timed. Since I was not able to monitor the markets on a regular basis, I placed some open orders (some at the bid) and they never got executed. It cost me dearly (to the tune of over 150k). Unlike the Nov rout I faced which I didn’t anticipate, this time I was ready and still lost.

I turned multiple baggers in my APOL puts into expiring worthless. Oh, well. I at least have the academic bragging rights that I nailed the top for that pig.

They are debating heavily now to recognize losses in debt securities.

You do not have to mark to market down debt securities only if you have no “intent” to sell, have the “ability” to hold to maturity and you expect to recover 100% regardless of the agency rating.

If you cannot recover the cost of the debt security or recover cash flow you have to mark it down.

They may be backtracking on this statement now because they are worried that businesses will not record as many mark to market impairments now. They believe that there are a lot of securities out there which are impaired and are not being marked down enough and this will make the situation worse.

Draw trendlines, lose 7-10% at most (IBD/investors business daily ‘conventional wisdom on a losing trade). And that is on the ‘underlying issue’. Trading a 2x or 3x and not paying attention to this fine IBD rule, will get you poorer,,,quickly.

Got yur dik in the zipper? Tit in the wringer? Well,,,ain’t that too damned bad.

I’m tired of hearing we are ‘going to 940′s, etc, etc. How do you KNOW we don’t selloff when today’s gap up/News driven gap up/open occurs??? You don’t!!!
I think I go all in short, once the News hits. The last gap will probably have filled, and by next Wednesday I might make a buck. Who knows.

All investors indicated that the FSP should require additional disclosures, especially for Level 3 fair value measurements. They indicated that the current level of detail required by Statement 157 is insufficient. That is, they would like disclosures about the inputs and valuation techniques in more detail and in interim periods.

a. The seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership or the seller was required to sell
to meet regulatory requirements.
b. There was a usual and customary marketing period, but the seller marketed the
asset to a single market participant.
c. The transaction price is an outlier relative to other similar transactions.

They do not want people to use the midpoint of quoted prices. They want them to still use the last quoted price in a transaction provided that the price isn’t distressed as defined above.

M2M is not going away..

Waiting on the next major topic which is whether you can backdate the results to Q1 or earlier.