|
Posted by Phil on January 11, 2007, 7:48 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Thanks for the info.
>
>> R.C.,
>>
>> Took a short cut by pricing Spectra Energy at .01 and Duke at $33.21
>> for the 12/29/06 closing price. Quicken wont let you price anything at
>> .00.
>
> One can circumvent Quicken's anti ZERO policy by using .0000001 for prices
> when required.
>
>
>
>> Just have to remember this if I ever need a valuation prior to 12/29/06.
>>
>> Again, thanks for your help.
>>
>> Phil B.
>>
>>
>>> Hi, Phil.
>>>
>>>> When I value my portfolio as of 12-29-06 Quicken has the 362 shares
>>>> of Duke Energy with the 12-29 closing price of $33.21 which is correct
>>>> but it also shows 181 shares of Spectra Energy with a price of $18.31
>>>> which is the basis price calculated by Quicken which is incorrect.
>>>> Messes up the portfolio valuation and inflates the unrealized capital
>>>> gains as of the end of 2006.
>>>
>>> Yes, this is what I meant by my poorly-worded paragraph in the Nemo
>>> thread:
>>>
>>> "As John Pollard points out, Quicken's handling of this is not
>>> retroactive.
>>> If you look at your Portfolio in Quicken for a date when you help DUK
>>> prior
>>> to the spin-off, you will see SE shares that you did not actually hold
>>> at
>>> that time. I'm not sure how to handle this, except to recognize that it
>>> happens and adjust for it."
>>>
>>> If you bought DUK on 1/1/05, for example, then record the spin-off on
>>> 1/2/07, and then ask for any kind of portfolio or net worth report for
>>> any date from 1/1/05 to 1/2/07, Quicken will show those 181 "ghost
>>> shares" of SE - which is wrong. I've never had to actually deal with
>>> the problem, but my first impression is that you could correct the error
>>> by hiding the SE shares or setting their historical value on that date
>>> to zero. Presumably, the 362 shares of DUK would be shown correctly at
>>> their correct price. If you confirm (or disprove) that, please let us
>>> all know.
>>>
>>> So, did you have to use one of the long-way fixes that John and I
>>> worried about, or did you find a short-cut?
>>>
>>> RC
>>> --
>>> R. C. White, CPA
>>> San Marcos, TX
>>> (Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
>>> rc@grandecom.net
>>> Microsoft Windows MVP
>>> (Currently running Vista Ultimate x64)
>>>
>>>> Hi RC,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for pointing me to the Spectra Energy posts in this
>>>> newsgroup. Lots of good info there.
>>>>
>>>> Prices I used were the opening prices on 1-03-07 since the
>>>> Corporate Securities Spin-off transaction asks for the post spin-off
>>>> price. As you said it probably won't make that much of a difference
>>>> tax wise.
>>>>
>>>> When I value my portfolio as of 12-29-06 Quicken has the 362 shares
>>>> of Duke Energy with the 12-29 closing price of $33.21 which is correct
>>>> but it also shows 181 shares of Spectra Energy with a price of $18.31
>>>> which is the basis price calculated by Quicken which is incorrect.
>>>> Messes up the portfolio valuation and inflates the unrealized capital
>>>> gains as of the end of 2006.
>>>>
>>>> Not a big problem now that I understand the error in Quicken.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your help and patience
>>>>
>>>> Phil B.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap