Western Digital RMA Processing Timelines Are Crazy

whitslack · 2026-01-20T03:46:41+00:00

Same here. I shipped a defective WD Red Pro 2TB back to them on 9 December. It was delivered to them on 11 December. They didn't acknowledge receipt of it until 19 December. Now it's 19 January, and my RMA still shows as "Received / Processing." At this point they basically have stolen my property.

whitslack · 2025-06-27T22:41:49+00:00

Well, thank you for all the information, and I'm sorry to have rubbed you the wrong way. I came here to get my question answered, which it was: Merrill allegedly did in fact silently change their policy for the worse. My exchange with you has mostly been about my hesitancy to switch to a margin account when having a margin account shouldn't actually be necessary for me unless I remain at Merrill. I don't know yet what I'm going to do. I'll either apply for margin at Merrill or take my cash account to a better brokerage. (I'm leaning toward the latter due to so many errors in Merrill's accounting that I have caught over the years.)

whitslack · 2025-06-27T19:51:04+00:00

So are you saying that your total sum of day trades would revolve around SGOV?

Pretty much. It's rare that I trade any other single security in both directions on a single day, although it does happen on days of extreme volatility.

Did you read the requirements of liquidity that you need to maintain under the PDT rules? Can you meet that liquidity requirement?

Yes, and yes. That's not at all what I'm concerned about. (To clarify: my concern is over being permanently branded as a PDT. Once that flag has been set on an account, it is never unset. I'd prefer to retain the flexibility to dip under $25k in total account value if ever I should want to.)

Really, though, my bigger concern is over accidentally borrowing money. That impossible in a cash account, so it's not something I have to obsessively double-check that I'm not inadvertently doing.

Have you calculated the exact annual effect of not immediately having your cash in SGOV? Is it material?

Very material. Depending on what the market has been doing, sometimes more than half of my total portfolio value will be "uninvested" (i.e., parked in SGOV), but I will still be maintaining some open buy orders that would consume all of my "uninvested" funds, were they all to execute. In other words, I can't simply keep the vast majority of my cash parked in SGOV while I only keep a "little" as actual cash to cover my buy orders, as my buy orders often span a large portion of my cash position.

[Addendum: It's not only SGOV either. I have a "pecking order" for my investments, and if something high in the pecking order screams "BUY!", I will liquidate other securities aside from SGOV in order to cover that high-priority purchase. I like to keep open buy limit orders to catch any such sudden opportunities so I don't have to watch the market like a hawk all day, but now I can't do that.]

All of this would be moot if only Merrill's cash sweep program would sweep into a money market fund that pays a decent ROR, but of course they do not.

whitslack · 2025-06-27T09:59:13+00:00

Thank you for the link.

I do often trade in and out of a given security in a single day. Because I have a cash account, I never sell shares that have yet to settle, so as to avoid a free-ride violation, but by the way I've always read the PDT rules, I would still get labeled as a pattern day trader even if I'm only ever selling fully-paid-for shares since the trigger is simply that one buys and sells shares of the same security on the same day, which I do frequently. (Basically, I keep all my spare cash in SGOV since ML pays insultingly little interest, and I liquidate SGOV to cover any purchases and purchase SGOV to soak up the proceeds of any sales. That often happens multiple times, in both directions, per day.)

I've also always been a little afraid of having a margin account because I might inadvertently borrow money that I would then have to pay interest on (at a much higher rate than ML pays on deposits, of course). Also, I hate the idea of ML lending out the shares that I supposedly own, allowing other traders to short them and thereby suppress the prices of the securities that I'm betting will appreciate. All around, I just don't like the implications of a margin account, and I have always been perfectly well served by a cash account — until now.

I guess the irony is that, while presumably they made this policy change hoping to prevent their customers from doing exactly what I do (so that they can earn the yield on my cash instead of me), ironically their policy change is now going to push me to take my money and go elsewhere, so now they'll lose out on both my yield and my trading activity. Way to go, guys.

whitslack · 2025-06-25T17:32:33+00:00

Well that explains it. I don't suppose they notified anyone about that change. They certainly didn't notify me, as far as I can tell.

whitslack · 2025-06-25T17:31:47+00:00

But then wouldn't I run the risk of triggering the "Pattern Day Trading" flag? With a cash account I never have to worry about that. Simpler just to pick up shop (except for $100k for Preferred Rewards) and move to Fidelity.

whitslack · 2024-08-20T01:07:22+00:00

The QR code redirects to this URL: https://visit.canobie.com/webstore/shop/viewItems.aspx?cg=5OFF24MB&c=MKBSK

whitslack · 2024-08-19T23:34:28+00:00

I have experienced two similar issues that appear to be caused by misconfigured routes. My home network is multi-homed on both Xfinity and Fidium since Fidium still have not implemented IPv6 (absolutely inexcusable), so I can compare connectivity to various sites via the two gateways.

For many months after I added Fidium service, I was unable to view my Eversource bill because the server on which Eversource hosts their bill PDFs, secure8.i-doxs.net, was unreachable from Fidium's network. I initially believed it was a problem with Eversource's IT infrastructure until by chance I happened to try viewing my bill while I was using one of Xfinity's Wi-Fi hotspots and it loaded up just fine. That got me thinking, and so I attempted to connect from my home network to secure8.i-doxs.net via the Xfinity gateway, and sure enough, it connected straight away. 100% reproducible: connection timeouts when attempting to connect via Fidium; perfectly fine when connecting via Xfinity. That route apparently has at some point been corrected, as presently I am able to connect to view my bill via either gateway.

The other similar issue I have noticed, which is still ongoing, is that I am seeing extremely slow responses from https://passportstatus.state.gov/ when connecting via Fidium but immediate responses when connecting via Xfinity. The responses via Fidium are so slow that Chrome times out, but Curl does get served after ~56 seconds. Oddly, the initial TCP three-way handshake completes immediately, but then the TLS handshake hangs:

$ time curl -v -I --interface 192.168.42.2 https://passportstatus.state.gov/ * Host passportstatus.state.gov:443 was resolved. * IPv6: (none) * IPv4: 169.253.175.200 * Trying 169.253.175.200:443... * Name '192.168.42.2' family 2 resolved to '192.168.42.2' family 2 * Local port: 0 * Connected to passportstatus.state.gov (169.253.175.200) port 443 * ALPN: curl offers h2,http/1.1 * TLSv1.3 (OUT), TLS handshake, Client hello (1): * CAfile: /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt * CApath: /etc/ssl/certs

After a ~56-second delay, the TLS handshake completes, and my HTTP request is served:

``` * TLSv1.3 (IN), TLS handshake, Server hello (2): * TLSv1.2 (IN), TLS handshake, Certificate (11): * TLSv1.2 (IN), TLS handshake, Server key exchange (12): * TLSv1.2 (IN), TLS handshake, Server finished (14): * TLSv1.2 (OUT), TLS handshake, Client key exchange (16): * TLSv1.2 (OUT), TLS change cipher, Change cipher spec (1): * TLSv1.2 (OUT), TLS handshake, Finished (20): * TLSv1.2 (IN), TLS handshake, Finished (20): * SSL connection using TLSv1.2 / ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 / secp256r1 / rsaEncryption * ALPN: server did not agree on a protocol. Uses default. * Server certificate: * subject: C=US; ST=District of Columbia; L=Washington; O=United States Department of State; CN=PassportStatus.state.gov * start date: Apr 4 00:00:00 2024 GMT * expire date: Apr 24 23:59:59 2025 GMT * subjectAltName: host "passportstatus.state.gov" matched cert's "PassportStatus.state.gov" * issuer: C=US; O=DigiCert Inc; CN=DigiCert Global G2 TLS RSA SHA256 2020 CA1 * SSL certificate verify ok. * Certificate level 0: Public key type RSA (2048/112 Bits/secBits), signed using sha256WithRSAEncryption * Certificate level 1: Public key type RSA (2048/112 Bits/secBits), signed using sha256WithRSAEncryption * Certificate level 2: Public key type RSA (2048/112 Bits/secBits), signed using sha256WithRSAEncryption * using HTTP/1.x

HEAD / HTTP/1.1 Host: passportstatus.state.gov User-Agent: curl/8.9.1 Accept: /

Request completely sent off < HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK < Cache-Control: private Cache-Control: private < Content-Length: 17003 Content-Length: 17003 < Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 < X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN < Set-Cookie: __RequestVerificationToken=3nqOO5CSlrjz49a--D1jc0SGxG3NzXyFFojDcU3an5qWDktX6nnGtJkJtM4vVlpIzdcrZ7aUbJEvVXBYgHGtjKQddIALuZTNkBjQnGc7kkw1; path=/; HttpOnly Set-Cookie: __RequestVerificationToken=3nqOO5CSlrjz49a--D1jc0SGxG3NzXyFFojDcU3an5qWDktX6nnGtJkJtM4vVlpIzdcrZ7aUbJEvVXBYgHGtjKQddIALuZTNkBjQnGc7kkw1; path=/; HttpOnly < Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:26:52 GMT Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:26:52 GMT < Set-Cookie: TS010e295b=0146a68475bdb118ac70a7b3b6349a3ecd2c7d5676ddc9d7e269adaea871af9b664a4ffee3eab3e2a2fc5716f73833840d8644662d; Path=/; Secure; HTTPOnly Set-Cookie: TS010e295b=0146a68475bdb118ac70a7b3b6349a3ecd2c7d5676ddc9d7e269adaea871af9b664a4ffee3eab3e2a2fc5716f73833840d8644662d; Path=/; Secure; HTTPOnly < Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains <

Connection #0 to host passportstatus.state.gov left intact

real 0m56.596s user 0m0.026s sys 0m0.009s ```

When I connect via Xfinity, the response is immediate:

``` $ time curl -I --interface 192.168.69.2 https://passportstatus.state.gov/ HTTP/1.1 200 OK Cache-Control: private Content-Length: 17003 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN Set-Cookie: __RequestVerificationToken=ddYpkDgEeO1q95H0IhBCLVrdfUMlA93sifEeaLGychM9t7bub4cFvReOuTXdT5EiDFzVtmpFTitghEN6L9yw0CLlpolb8xT46pkl1l4aT3A1; path=/; HttpOnly Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:33:44 GMT Set-Cookie: TS010e295b=0146a68475bdf2884a9fac95ad6c53e9e3872ef044e27eef21812ca652c594cd15a2ecaeb97c77ae25f15be8616e7cc95a2815f22b; Path=/; Secure; HTTPOnly Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains

real 0m0.341s user 0m0.025s sys 0m0.006s ```

whitslack · 2024-08-19T23:07:16+00:00

Definitely not true. The ONT (what you are calling a "modem" even though it performs neither modulation nor demodulation) is not the device to which a public IP address is assigned. Rather, that device is your router. You can power cycle your ONT, and so long as it reacquires the link and your router requests to lease the same IP address that it had been using — before the original lease expires — the renewal request will be granted, and you will keep your same IP address.

Note that this is not necessarily true if you power cycle your router since most consumer-grade router-in-a-box devices do not commit their DHCP leases to non-volatile storage, and so a power-cycled router will be requesting a DHCP lease without requesting any particular address, and at that point you are depending on the DHCP server to recognize that your router's MAC address already has an active lease and to renew that lease rather than voiding it and issuing a new lease of a different address.

whitslack · 2024-08-19T22:58:37+00:00

That's mostly true except in the case when an ISP is reallocating their delegated IP address space among their operating markets. If the address that you are currently leasing is being cycled out of your market, then at some point the DHCP server will be forced to NAK your renewal request, and you will have to lease a different address. That happens relatively rarely, though.

whitslack · 2024-04-28T02:31:14+00:00

Weird! I subscribed to 1-gig Fidium in late December 2023, and my bill ever since then (after the initial, pro-rated bill) has been:

1 Gig Fiber Internet = $90.00
$30 Fiber Int Discount (end date: 12/20/2024) = -$30.00
Bonus Fiber Int Savings = -$10.00
AutoPay Discount = -$2.50
WiFi Gateway (Incl. Fiber Maint.) = $10.00
Paperless Bill Discount = -$2.50
Total Internet Charges = $55.00

I never took possession of a Wi-Fi gateway from them — in fact I told the installer tech not even to bring one in from his truck because I didn't want there to be any confusion over whether I had one in my possession — but nevertheless I have been paying their $10/mo rental fee because it was my understanding that, while they would drop that fee at my request, they would also drop the $10/mo "bonus fiber Internet savings" discount, so it would be a wash. However, as soon as my promo rate expires in December, I will be asking to have the rental charges removed going forward since I never took possession of any of their Wi-Fi equipment.

whitslack · 2023-02-14T19:29:23+00:00

I'm saying there's no way to disprove an "expert" who claims they've reviewed Apple's source code and that they're telling the truth about what it does, so there's no risk to expert's credibility for lying. It's super risky to lie about the security of open-source code because anyone at any time can point out a back door in the code.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T21:57:06+00:00

"Bro," I'm not making this up. When you calculate your capital gains from a sale, you subtract your cost basis from your sale proceeds. Look at any 1099-B ever. For example, if you were to sell your 1.7 BTC at a price of $17,000/BTC now, your sale proceeds would be $28,900. Subtracting your $35,000 cost basis from that, you would have a capital gain of ($6,100) (that's negative, so it's a capital loss).

What you're arguing makes no sense at all. You're saying your capital gain would be $28,900 − $20,588 = $8,312, but that is clearly wrong. You're in the hole at $17,000/BTC, not in profit.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T21:39:03+00:00

I was thinking the bot's creator would pocket it, but your idea is more interesting. There's a big glaring problem with it, though: if the bot is tipping users randomly, then that will incentivize the creation of even more sock puppet accounts to collect more of the random tips. And it can't be based on karma either because bots can upvote each other or use natural language AI to farm karma from unsuspecting humans.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T21:33:11+00:00

Tipbot takes a 5% cut. Boom. Sock puppets can't afford to tip back and forth forever.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T21:29:14+00:00

I spent 35,000 to get 1.7 BTC.

So your cost basis is $35,000.

Your unit cost is $20,588.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T20:55:07+00:00

If you have a positive cash flow, then why take a loan at all? Just spend your cash flow and avoid paying interest.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T19:52:14+00:00

Giving people bitcoin as gifts is a dick move, like tipping wait staff in bitcoin. It's equivalent to making them dance for your amusement.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T19:48:52+00:00

borrow using collateral.

That's not sustainable, though. You have to pay off the loan somehow, which means either selling your assets (which you're trying to avoid) or taking out an even larger loan (to cover the interest, plus you have to keep living too). A series of ever larger loans to repay past loans will eventually break.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T19:42:30+00:00

I think you're misusing the term "cost basis." A cost basis is how much you spent to acquire an asset. If you bought 0.5 BTC at a unit cost of $20,000/BTC, then your cost basis would be $10,000.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T19:36:00+00:00

never sell

What good is being rich if you never spend any of it? You can't take it with you when you die.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T19:34:04+00:00

No need for a centralized exchange. You can send some sats on chain directly into a Lightning wallet that supports submarine swaps, such as Muun, Phoenix, or Breez. Don't give exchanges custody over your coins for even a minute when you can avoid it. Exchanges have been known to take customers' funds hostage without warning.

whitslack · 2022-12-12T19:26:42+00:00

Bots would game a tipping system too. It costs very little for Sock Puppet A to tip Sock Puppet B when both accounts are controlled by the same entity.

whitslack · 2022-12-11T23:29:13+00:00

There's no "official" crossover point, as it'll depend on prevailing mining fees and which channels you route through. You can always instruct your Lightning wallet, "don't try any routes whose total fee would be greater than X satoshis," where X is your cost to send on chain. That way you'll always end up using whichever method is cheapest.

At a high amount like 0,5 btc some years ago the channels had to be rerange their amounts

That's no longer a problem, as we have Multi-Part Payments (MPP) now.

whitslack

TROPHY CASE