Texas Proud
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 17,359
I kept those scenarios out to simplify, but again I get the benefit of the doubt either way. As well, they should have to at least use all the money they pulled back to buy shares in my account, i.e. they shouldn't be making a profit on their error with they money they liquidated from me, which is what you're suggesting.
I will disagree with your thought process...
My example... you have 100 shares of XYZ before they liquidate...
They replace those 100 shares of XYZ... you are made whole..
Unless you can prove that you buy and sell all of the 100 shares you get nothing else... not history of selling everything then there is no way you were going to sell everything...
But using your example...
You had 100 of XYZ that they sold and moved the money... they got it back but XYZ gained in price and your money could not only buy 90 shares... would you accept that? I mean you got ALL of your money back using your logic... too bad you lost out on the gain...
Since you would not agree to the 90 if the market goes up, then you should not get more than 100 shares if the market goes down...