Just been thru those .Was the joke that there can't be a link to something that doesn't exist , or did I miss that bit again. Can't find the bit that talks about a compulsory 1st in 1st out. However , I think I found the reason the trick has problems , see if you can find it . If the 1st in, first out reason isn't a joke or fantasy , that would be 2 reasons. A bit like the cgt wash sale rules , it all comes down to ""intent ". If it can be shown , objectively , that either of the transactions was made in expectation of the other , then you lose. If you have an arguable case on intent , other than washing obviously, you win. " I bought the 2nd parcel because I thought anz was a winner, the following day I read about the riots in Gugarat, and was worried about ANZ exposure to the area. So I sold , and sold the ones I had held for 6 months" Now apart from one unsupported opinion (so far I can't find anything to back it up )which says 1st in , 1st out , I sold whichever parcel I wished to. So if it could not be shown, objectively, that my intentions weren't pure, I still feel I might have a shot( objectively is a hard bar to get over). And remember Cutty and others before you get your knickers in twist , this is not something I plan on doing , even if I am the right generation to be the Antichrist.
