assets from the confluence of events appearing on this record is essentially speculative and is based on assumptions that are not sufficiently supported by the record. It is obvious that the former wife’s investment practices and her conduct was troubling to the court; however, given the history of the parties’ mutual treatment of their financial and investment affairs, in which the former husband left all such matters in the former wife’s hands, there is an insufficient basis for an unequal distribution of assets. The former husband, who would have shared in any profits, must share equally in the losses, notwithstanding that the former wife’s investment conduct may well have been imprudent. See § 61.075(1)®, Fla. Stat. (2001); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(<HOLDING>). We also conclude that the amount arrived at
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the husbands unvested stock options as marital property holding that husbands imprudent investments which lost their value in 1987 stock market crash not adequate justification for inequitable distribution of marital assets holding that if the market value of an asset can be ascertained the decree should account for the change in value between the date of the decree and the timely execution of the distribution plan in the decree the distribution based on value at the distribution date holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market