Home Page link  

Adjusting share holdings to match brokerage stmt

  
Groups | Search | About
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Quicken Personal Finance Discussions - Quicken - personal finance software discussions

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Adjusting share holdings to match brokerage stmt jo 12-03-2007
Posted by Oilcan on December 4, 2007, 10:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 Also to add to R.C.'s response it also depends on the broker. In my worse
case I have some funds in Vanguard that downloads to five significant digits
after the decimal, Vanguard's website only details the transaction to three
places after the decimal and in Quicken it wants to reconcile to two places
after the decimal. I've personally elected to round to three and tie to
what I can see on the website. I don't accept the Quicken offered
placeholders and I spot check the rounding to make sure it is only off a few
1/1000 of a share. I continue to download as it does save me sometime in
data entry considering the number of transactions in the account per month.

Oilcan
> Hi, Jo.
>
> I second Eric's advice.
>
> This question comes up very often here. The answer is always the same.
> You are never going to get a check from your broker or fund manager for a
> fraction of a cent. And your broker's statement or mutual fund balance is
> never going to show that you hold a millionth of a share of anything.
> Cash is always rounded to the nearest penny - and no further. Shares in
> your account are rounded to the nearest whole share for individual
> securities and to the nearest 1,000th of a share (.001) for mutual funds.
>
> So, always record cash transactions rounded to the nearest penny. Always
> record share transactions to the nearest whole share or the nearest .001
> share, as appropriate. Calculate the per-share price to as many decimal
> digits as you like, but don't use that price in calculations, except as a
> check on the reasonableness of the actual cents or shares recorded. When
> Quicken asks which of the factors to adjust, let it adjust the price per
> share, leaving the exact total amount and total shares as you know them to
> be "in the real world".
>
> Quicken provides a shortcut way to adjust the shares balance, and
> sometimes it makes sense to use this method. But purists (like me) and
> obsessives (as you say you are) will always want to go back and delete all
> the incorrect entries and record them properly. When done correctly, this
> will eliminate the fractional-share differences.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> (Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
> rc@grandecom.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Currently running Quicken 2008 Deluxe in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
>> Due to rounding, Quicken [H & B, 2006, and other versions] sometimes
>> get out of whack with what the brokerage says you have in terms of the
>> # of shares in mutual funds with reinvesting. In order to get the
>> total cost correct, I've played with either the price or the number of
>> shares a bit sometimes. What I'd like to know is what the best/most
>> practical way of bringing my holdings back into sync with the
>> statement. It's a very small fraction off in one mutual fund, but it
>> annoys me, obsessive that I am. I tried simply removing that
>> fractional number from the portfolio but Quicken wants a cost value
>> entered, I don't know what to use, and treats it like a sell. Is
>> there a better/easier way?
>>
>> jo
>


Posted by John Pollard on December 4, 2007, 11:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 Oilcan wrote:
> Also to add to R.C.'s response it also depends on the broker.
> In my
> worse case I have some funds in Vanguard that downloads to
> five
> significant digits after the decimal, Vanguard's website only
> details
> the transaction to three places after the decimal and in
> Quicken it
> wants to reconcile to two places after the decimal. I've
> personally
> elected to round to three and tie to what I can see on the
> website. I don't accept the Quicken offered placeholders and I
> spot check the
> rounding to make sure it is only off a few 1/1000 of a share.
> I
> continue to download as it does save me sometime in data entry
> considering the number of transactions in the account per
> month.
> Oilcan
>> Hi, Jo.
>>
>> I second Eric's advice.
>>
>> This question comes up very often here. The answer is always
>> the
>> same. You are never going to get a check from your broker or
>> fund
>> manager for a fraction of a cent. And your broker's
>> statement or
>> mutual fund balance is never going to show that you hold a
>> millionth
>> of a share of anything. Cash is always rounded to the nearest
>> penny
>> - and no further. Shares in your account are rounded to the
>> nearest
>> whole share for individual securities and to the nearest
>> 1,000th of
>> a share (.001) for mutual funds. So, always record cash
>> transactions rounded to the nearest penny. Always record
>> share transactions to the nearest whole share or the
>> nearest .001 share, as appropriate. Calculate the per-share
>> price
>> to as many decimal digits as you like, but don't use that
>> price in
>> calculations, except as a check on the reasonableness of the
>> actual
>> cents or shares recorded. When Quicken asks which of the
>> factors to
>> adjust, let it adjust the price per share, leaving the exact
>> total
>> amount and total shares as you know them to be "in the real
>> world".
>>
>> Quicken provides a shortcut way to adjust the shares balance,
>> and
>> sometimes it makes sense to use this method. But purists
>> (like me)
>> and obsessives (as you say you are) will always want to go
>> back and
>> delete all the incorrect entries and record them properly.
>> When
>> done correctly, this will eliminate the fractional-share
>> differences.
>>
>> RC

I never like disagreeing with RC, so I almost never do. And I
am now finding it even more difficult because, for some reason,
his post has not appeared from either of the newsgroups that I
am currently subscribing to. The only way I know what RC said
in this thread is by reading Oilcan's post. Sorry for any
confusion this may cause.

It is not true that you can count on share balances being
delivered accurately to two or three decimal places.

Those may be common in many situations, but I can tell you for a
certainty that those degrees of "accuracy" are not universal.

There are at least two problems which RC did not address.

First: not all financial institutions maintain or report share
balances with the same accuracy RC suggests. I get share
balances "reported" to at least thousands of a share (.001) for
my stock holdings with Smith Barney and with USAA (I have had
share balances reported to four decimal places, though I can not
say that is happening currently).

Secondly: I am certain that, at least some, financial
institutions report your holdings (in every security, including
stocks) to three (or possibly four, or more) decimal places, but
carry your holdings internally (in their computer systems) to as
much as six decimal places. This means that you may see your
share holdings in Quicken "drift" away from being accurate with
your share holdings at the fi at some point. [I know that RC
can demonstrate for you how this can happen: rounding problems
are subject to both the time the rounding occurs, and to the
time/degree it is reported.]

I believe the problem is more likely to occur when you download
transactions to investment accounts; and very likely to occur
when you "reinvest" in stocks.

I have complained to a couple of brokerages in the past, and
things have gotten better. I almost never see the problem with
accounts I download from any more.

[But you still have to badger some fi's to make sure they are
reporting 100% of all transactions ... including the removal
(sale) of shares to pay their fees!]

--
John Pollard
First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
Please reply to newsgroup



Posted by R. C. White on December 5, 2007, 10:49 am
Please log in for more thread options
Hi, John - and Oilcan.

I KNEW I should have thrown in a qualifying statement there, but I was in a
hurry and Jo's original question didn't seem to require the clarification.
I should have known that you guys are lurking (and in a newsgroup, "lurking"
is A Good Thing!) and would call me on it. ;^}

>> Also to add to R.C.'s response it also depends on the broker.

Yep. I said:

> Cash is always rounded to the nearest penny - and no further. Shares in
> your
account are rounded to the nearest whole share for individual securities and
to the nearest 1,000th of a share (.001) for mutual funds.

Cash IS rounded to the penny, but shares are USUALLY rounded to even shares
or .001 in mutual funds. There are exceptions, as you guys have pointed
out. And even cash is often not rounded when we are not actually writing a
check, such as when calculating per-share amounts.

Oilcan said:
>> I
>> continue to download as it does save me sometime in data entry
>> considering the number of transactions in the account per month.

Since I don't download transactions, I have not seen this kind of rounding
problem.

John said:
> I never like disagreeing with RC, so I almost never do. And I am now
> finding it even more difficult because, for some reason, his post has not
> appeared from either of the newsgroups that I am currently subscribing to.
> The only way I know what RC said in this thread is by reading Oilcan's
> post. Sorry for any confusion this may cause.

Go ahead, John. Disagree with me whenever you like, especially when I'm
wrong. You started using Quicken several years later than me, but you
caught up and passed us very quickly, and I'll defer to you on just about
any Quicken question. (But you do seem to need a different news server.)

> I believe the problem is more likely to occur when you download
> transactions to investment accounts; and very likely to occur when you
> "reinvest" in stocks.

As I said, I don't download transactions. I haven't invested in mutual
funds in a decade or so, and I never had one (for myself or a client) that
did not round to .001 share - at least, so far as I could see on the
documents. I may have been entitled to .3333333333 shares, according to the
behind-the-scenes calculations, but .333 share was what I got. And if I had
tried to sell .3333 shares, Quicken would have yelled "Foul" - and so would
the fund manager, probably. John, would YOUR mutual fund actually let you
sell .33333 shares, if that's what their calculations said you have? Or
would they limit your sale to .333 shares?

(John's parenthetical remark that I might be able to demonstrate the effect
of timing on rounding apparently refers to the sequence of your arithmetic.
For example: 100 * 2/3 = 67, right? Yes, if you multiply 100 times 2
first, you get 200, then divide 200 by 3, you get 66 2/3, which rounds to
67. Or if you divide 100 by 3 you get 33 1/3, then multiply times 2 to get
66 2/3 or 67 again. But if you round the 33 1/3 after dividing and before
multiplying, you get 33 times 2 equals 66 - not 67. So the sequence of your
arithmetic AND your rounding is very important. As a general rule, always
multiply first, then divide - and round only the final result. That's
grade-school arithmetic, but easy to forget unless we have to work with it
on a daily basis - like an accountant does.)

Dividend reinvestment plans and employee investment plans also often result
in unusual fractional shares. And the sale of shares to get the cash to pay
fees adds to the complexity. My advice to record actual dollars and cents
and actual shares and fractions still applies, but must be tailored to fit
the specific plan and the sequence of the step transactions. The basic
idea, though, remains: Record what really happened to the cash and shares
that we can see, while letting any fine rounding differences end up in the
cost-per-share calculation, which is used once and then discarded except as
a historical memo.

The same general principle applies for other exotic transactions, such as
stock splits, mergers, spin-offs, cash paid in lieu of fractional
shares...any transaction that involves the calculation of amount per share
or fractional shares. Record the real-world quantities (of cash and shares)
that you can see (in your hand or on the documents). Record the actual
number of shares that you can sell. Carry out any per-share calculation as
far as you like, but don't change the real-world dollars or shares to agree
with the per-share calculation.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Quicken 2008 Deluxe in Vista Ultimate x64)

> Oilcan wrote:
>> Also to add to R.C.'s response it also depends on the broker. In my
>> worse case I have some funds in Vanguard that downloads to five
>> significant digits after the decimal, Vanguard's website only details
>> the transaction to three places after the decimal and in Quicken it
>> wants to reconcile to two places after the decimal. I've personally
>> elected to round to three and tie to what I can see on the website. I
>> don't accept the Quicken offered placeholders and I spot check the
>> rounding to make sure it is only off a few 1/1000 of a share. I
>> continue to download as it does save me sometime in data entry
>> considering the number of transactions in the account per month.
>> Oilcan
>>> Hi, Jo.
>>>
>>> I second Eric's advice.
>>>
>>> This question comes up very often here. The answer is always the
>>> same. You are never going to get a check from your broker or fund
>>> manager for a fraction of a cent. And your broker's statement or
>>> mutual fund balance is never going to show that you hold a millionth
>>> of a share of anything. Cash is always rounded to the nearest penny
>>> - and no further. Shares in your account are rounded to the nearest
>>> whole share for individual securities and to the nearest 1,000th of
>>> a share (.001) for mutual funds. So, always record cash transactions
>>> rounded to the nearest penny. Always record share transactions to the
>>> nearest whole share or the
>>> nearest .001 share, as appropriate. Calculate the per-share price
>>> to as many decimal digits as you like, but don't use that price in
>>> calculations, except as a check on the reasonableness of the actual
>>> cents or shares recorded. When Quicken asks which of the factors to
>>> adjust, let it adjust the price per share, leaving the exact total
>>> amount and total shares as you know them to be "in the real world".
>>>
>>> Quicken provides a shortcut way to adjust the shares balance, and
>>> sometimes it makes sense to use this method. But purists (like me)
>>> and obsessives (as you say you are) will always want to go back and
>>> delete all the incorrect entries and record them properly. When
>>> done correctly, this will eliminate the fractional-share differences.
>>>
>>> RC
>
> I never like disagreeing with RC, so I almost never do. And I am now
> finding it even more difficult because, for some reason, his post has not
> appeared from either of the newsgroups that I am currently subscribing to.
> The only way I know what RC said in this thread is by reading Oilcan's
> post. Sorry for any confusion this may cause.
>
> It is not true that you can count on share balances being delivered
> accurately to two or three decimal places.
>
> Those may be common in many situations, but I can tell you for a certainty
> that those degrees of "accuracy" are not universal.
>
> There are at least two problems which RC did not address.
>
> First: not all financial institutions maintain or report share balances
> with the same accuracy RC suggests. I get share balances "reported" to at
> least thousands of a share (.001) for my stock holdings with Smith Barney
> and with USAA (I have had share balances reported to four decimal places,
> though I can not say that is happening currently).
>
> Secondly: I am certain that, at least some, financial institutions report
> your holdings (in every security, including stocks) to three (or possibly
> four, or more) decimal places, but carry your holdings internally (in
> their computer systems) to as much as six decimal places. This means that
> you may see your share holdings in Quicken "drift" away from being
> accurate with your share holdings at the fi at some point. [I know that
> RC can demonstrate for you how this can happen: rounding problems are
> subject to both the time the rounding occurs, and to the time/degree it is
> reported.]
>
> I believe the problem is more likely to occur when you download
> transactions to investment accounts; and very likely to occur when you
> "reinvest" in stocks.
>
> I have complained to a couple of brokerages in the past, and things have
> gotten better. I almost never see the problem with accounts I download
> from any more.
>
> [But you still have to badger some fi's to make sure they are reporting
> 100% of all transactions ... including the removal (sale) of shares to pay
> their fees!]
>
> --
> John Pollard


Posted by John Pollard on December 5, 2007, 11:48 am
Please log in for more thread options
R. C. White wrote:

>> I believe the problem is more likely to occur when you
>> download
>> transactions to investment accounts; and very likely to occur
>> when
>> you "reinvest" in stocks.
>
> As I said, I don't download transactions. I haven't invested
> in
> mutual funds in a decade or so, and I never had one (for
> myself or a
> client) that did not round to .001 share - at least, so far as
> I
> could see on the documents. I may have been entitled to
> .3333333333
> shares, according to the behind-the-scenes calculations, but
> .333
> share was what I got. And if I had tried to sell .3333
> shares,
> Quicken would have yelled "Foul" - and so would the fund
> manager,
> probably. John, would YOUR mutual fund actually let you sell
> .33333
> shares, if that's what their calculations said you have? Or
> would
> they limit your sale to .333 shares?

I didn't mean to make it sound like I could sell a more of
shares than my financial institution said I had. In fact, I
think that unless one can demonstrate an error on the part of
the fi, the fi's record of the number of shares owned is the
final word.

No, the problem I'm referring to (and as I said, it may be a
shrinking problem) is when the financial institution reports
number of shares to a different degree of accuracy than what
they have in their system.

One financial institution carried number of shares to six
decimal places in their computer system, reported transactions
to 4 decimal places, and reported holdings to 3 decimal places.

One situation where I know this created a problem for me was for
reinvestments in "stocks" (which do not have any agreed upon 3
decimal place limit on the accuracy of your holdings of them).
At one time I was getting transactions for the reinvestments
rounded to 3 decimal places while the fi was carrying them in
their system at 4 decimal places.

Another situation where this occurs is in 401k accounts where
the fi is selling mutual funds that are special versions of the
funds available for non-401k accounts. Those 401k funds are
maintained in "units", not "shares", and those units are carried
by (at least some) 401k admins to an accuracy of six decimal
places (but only reported to 3 decimal places).

> (John's parenthetical remark that I might be able to
> demonstrate the
> effect of timing on rounding apparently refers to the sequence
> of
> your arithmetic. For example: 100 * 2/3 = 67, right? Yes, if
> you
> multiply 100 times 2 first, you get 200, then divide 200 by 3,
> you
> get 66 2/3, which rounds to 67. Or if you divide 100 by 3 you
> get 33 1/3, then multiply times 2
> to get 66 2/3 or 67 again. But if you round the 33 1/3 after
> dividing and before multiplying, you get 33 times 2 equals
> 66 - not
> 67. So the sequence of your arithmetic AND your rounding is
> very
> important. As a general rule, always multiply first, then
> divide -
> and round only the final result. That's grade-school
> arithmetic, but
> easy to forget unless we have to work with it on a daily
> basis - like
> an accountant does.)

A good point, and you probably can't make it too often.

But actually, I had something slightly different in mind.

If the financial institution is carrying your share balance to a
greater degree of accuracy than they are reporting (or
downloading) to you, as time goes along, your Quicken share
balances will drift further away from your fi holdings.

Suppose you get two reinvestment transactions one year; the
first for .4002 shares in June, the second, for .4004 shares in
December. But suppose your fi, while recording the number of
shares in their system to 4 decimal places, is only reporting
(and downloading) share values to 3 decimal places ... so they
report that you acquired .400 shares in June and .400 more
shares in December and you Enter (or download) that into
Quicken.

Ignoring all other shares of that security for purposes of
simplification, at the end of the year Quicken would show you
holding .800 shares, but your financial institution, which is
rounding their internal 4 digit numbers to 3 decimal places,
will have added .4002 and .4004 to arrive at .8006 (in their
system), which they will report to you as .801 shares.

So Quicken was getting transactions with shares rounded as of
the date of the transaction; while your fi was accumulating the
shares at a higher degree of accuracy, then rounding.

You see .4002 rounded = .400
.4003 rounded = .400
.400 + .400 = .800

The fi has .4002 + .4004 = .8006 rounded = .801.

If the fi were rounding shares in their internal system to 3
decimal places at the time of the transaction, the problem
wouldn't occur. If the fi didn't print (or download) values
rounded to a lower degree of accuracy than they maintained in
their internal system, the problem wouldn't occur.

What I want is for the fi to present to me the number of shares
to the same accuracy they maintain them in their own system. If
that's six decimal places, then print, or download, six decimal
places.

As I suggested earlier, I see less and less of this; but it is
still true of a couple of fi's.

--
John Pollard
First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
Please reply to newsgroup



Posted by Oilcan on December 6, 2007, 1:44 am
Please log in for more thread options
In my case, I download to five significant digits, web shows three and paper
statements show three. So which is the correct number? Probably five, but
the legal document is (paper statement) three so I choose to round to
three. Yes it does get out of wack overtime. Due to my election for
Vanguard to manage - subtractions of fees, new investments and occasional
rebalancing I have 200 + transactions per month over six funds. Don't get
me started that the management fee is downloaded as a remove shares and not
as a sale and a misc expense. Ugly.

In all - I do not fault Quicken - its Vanguard's problem that they can
correct by modifying the statement issued and the web presentation. Until
they do (not holding my breath...) I just live with this. If they do
modify - what a mess.

Cheers!

Oilcan

> R. C. White wrote:
>
>>> I believe the problem is more likely to occur when you download
>>> transactions to investment accounts; and very likely to occur when
>>> you "reinvest" in stocks.
>>
>> As I said, I don't download transactions. I haven't invested in
>> mutual funds in a decade or so, and I never had one (for myself or a
>> client) that did not round to .001 share - at least, so far as I
>> could see on the documents. I may have been entitled to .3333333333
>> shares, according to the behind-the-scenes calculations, but .333
>> share was what I got. And if I had tried to sell .3333 shares,
>> Quicken would have yelled "Foul" - and so would the fund manager,
>> probably. John, would YOUR mutual fund actually let you sell .33333
>> shares, if that's what their calculations said you have? Or would
>> they limit your sale to .333 shares?
>
> I didn't mean to make it sound like I could sell a more of shares than my
> financial institution said I had. In fact, I think that unless one can
> demonstrate an error on the part of the fi, the fi's record of the number
> of shares owned is the final word.
>
> No, the problem I'm referring to (and as I said, it may be a shrinking
> problem) is when the financial institution reports number of shares to a
> different degree of accuracy than what they have in their system.
>
> One financial institution carried number of shares to six decimal places
> in their computer system, reported transactions to 4 decimal places, and
> reported holdings to 3 decimal places.
>
> One situation where I know this created a problem for me was for
> reinvestments in "stocks" (which do not have any agreed upon 3 decimal
> place limit on the accuracy of your holdings of them). At one time I was
> getting transactions for the reinvestments rounded to 3 decimal places
> while the fi was carrying them in their system at 4 decimal places.
>
> Another situation where this occurs is in 401k accounts where the fi is
> selling mutual funds that are special versions of the funds available for
> non-401k accounts. Those 401k funds are maintained in "units", not
> "shares", and those units are carried by (at least some) 401k admins to an
> accuracy of six decimal places (but only reported to 3 decimal places).
>
>> (John's parenthetical remark that I might be able to demonstrate the
>> effect of timing on rounding apparently refers to the sequence of
>> your arithmetic. For example: 100 * 2/3 = 67, right? Yes, if you
>> multiply 100 times 2 first, you get 200, then divide 200 by 3, you
>> get 66 2/3, which rounds to 67. Or if you divide 100 by 3 you get 33
>> 1/3, then multiply times 2
>> to get 66 2/3 or 67 again. But if you round the 33 1/3 after
>> dividing and before multiplying, you get 33 times 2 equals 66 - not
>> 67. So the sequence of your arithmetic AND your rounding is very
>> important. As a general rule, always multiply first, then divide -
>> and round only the final result. That's grade-school arithmetic, but
>> easy to forget unless we have to work with it on a daily basis - like
>> an accountant does.)
>
> A good point, and you probably can't make it too often.
>
> But actually, I had something slightly different in mind.
>
> If the financial institution is carrying your share balance to a greater
> degree of accuracy than they are reporting (or downloading) to you, as
> time goes along, your Quicken share balances will drift further away from
> your fi holdings.
>
> Suppose you get two reinvestment transactions one year; the first for
> .4002 shares in June, the second, for .4004 shares in December. But
> suppose your fi, while recording the number of shares in their system to 4
> decimal places, is only reporting (and downloading) share values to 3
> decimal places ... so they report that you acquired .400 shares in June
> and .400 more shares in December and you Enter (or download) that into
> Quicken.
>
> Ignoring all other shares of that security for purposes of simplification,
> at the end of the year Quicken would show you holding .800 shares, but
> your financial institution, which is rounding their internal 4 digit
> numbers to 3 decimal places, will have added .4002 and .4004 to arrive at
> .8006 (in their system), which they will report to you as .801 shares.
>
> So Quicken was getting transactions with shares rounded as of the date of
> the transaction; while your fi was accumulating the shares at a higher
> degree of accuracy, then rounding.
>
> You see .4002 rounded = .400
> .4003 rounded = .400
> .400 + .400 = .800
>
> The fi has .4002 + .4004 = .8006 rounded = .801.
>
> If the fi were rounding shares in their internal system to 3 decimal
> places at the time of the transaction, the problem wouldn't occur. If the
> fi didn't print (or download) values rounded to a lower degree of accuracy
> than they maintained in their internal system, the problem wouldn't occur.
>
> What I want is for the fi to present to me the number of shares to the
> same accuracy they maintain them in their own system. If that's six
> decimal places, then print, or download, six decimal places.
>
> As I suggested earlier, I see less and less of this; but it is still true
> of a couple of fi's.
>
> --
> John Pollard
> First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
> Please reply to newsgroup
>


Similar ThreadsPosted
Holdings Report for a Security? April 5, 2007, 7:05 pm
DRP share purchases July 15, 2006, 9:45 am
What does a 40 year old AT&T share become?? January 5, 2007, 6:49 am
Share Transfer June 22, 2006, 2:05 pm
Zero-share placeholders April 20, 2008, 3:08 pm
Re: Adjusting cost basis June 30, 2006, 7:55 pm
Re: Adjusting cost basis July 1, 2006, 1:31 pm
Q2005-Adjusting Paycheck August 20, 2006, 7:00 pm
Adjusting cost basis June 29, 2006, 6:23 pm
Adjusting/undoing invoice payments March 19, 2008, 10:01 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap