No. of Recommendations: 2
I noticed that my cost basis post split has all been retained in the parent,BN.New BAM has a cost basis of about 37% of BN.This was a tax free spin off,so my thought was that my original cost basis should be split between the two new entities. Fidelity claims both new figures are accurate. This doesn't track at all. They are looking into it,just curious if this is any e else's experience?
Jk
No. of Recommendations: 6
I noticed that my cost basis post split has all been retained in the parent,BN.New BAM has a cost basis of about 37% of BN.This was a tax free spin off,so my thought was that my original cost basis should be split between the two new entities. Fidelity claims both new figures are accurate. This doesn't track at all. They are looking into it,just curious if this is any e else's experience?
I'm with you. Since this is technically a stock split -- 1237:1000 by Yahoo's reckoning -- there should be a new, lower per-share cost basis across all shares, commensurate with the increased share count. Fidelity so far shows a cost basis of the new BAM shares at the full original spinout value -- $32.02, or so -- and no change to the cost basis of old BAM (new BN) shares. If this were to stand, it would have advantageous tax consequences, adding money to the combined cost basis I did not spend, but unless I'm missing something it seems clearly inaccurate.
I also hold some Brookfield shares with another broker, which still lists the cost basis for both tickers as N/A. Perhaps by the time they figure it out, Fidelity will too.
No. of Recommendations: 2
TDA has apportioned the cost basis between the two entities correctly. The cost bases of BN & BAM add up to the pre split BAM. They use Gainskeeper for Cost Basis tracking. They have always done the cost basis adjustments from spin offs correctly in the past as well.
