|
Posted by Roscoe on February 13, 2007, 4:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options > Nope wrote:
> > Nope wrote:
>
> > Found the problem Bug in Q. Seems you have to own
> > something, anything in the account before you can
> > transfer anything in. So I created a shares in
> > transaction, then transfered in the real one, then
> > deleted the fake one. Traansfered in a second
> > transaction to make sure. Works fine.
>
> > Man, what a waste of time...
>
> > These guys are like MS...spend more time adding features
> > than fixing old bugs.
>
> I hate to rain on your rant, but it's not a bug.
>
> The only investment account you have to establish a postion in
> before transferring cash to it is a Single Mutual Fund account.
>
> And the reason you have to establish a postion in a Single
> Mutual Fund account before you can initiate a transfer of cash
> to it from another account, is because a Single Mutual Fund
> account can not hold any cash; so any transfer of cash into the
> account must be converted by Quicken to a Buy transaction. In
> order to enter a Buy transaction, Quicken has to know what
> security to Buy ... hence the need for you to establish the
> single security that will be held in the Single Mutual Fund
> account before you can initiate the transfer of any "cash" to it
> from another account.
>
> And you didn't have to use a "fake" SharesIn to establish the
> position; you could have just done the transfer process in
> reverse; entering a Buy-Shares Bought transaction in the
> investment account, taking the funds from the checking account.
> When you enter the first Buy transaction in the account, you
> will be required to choose a security, and that will establish
> the security ... and create a transaction that you can keep.
>
> --
> John Pollard
> First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
> Please reply to newsgroup
First off, doing it in reverse is an unnecessary pain...the
transaction already existed in my checking account. By doing in in
reverse I create a duplicate transaction, and then have to transfer
all the split info or whatever from the old transaction.
When I built the single mutual fund account, it asked me and I told it
what fund to use. I just told it zero shares at start-up. In fact,
at startup it only asks you shares which is goofy anyway...opening an
account in the real world for a new fund requires buying the
shares...I've never had shares just magically appear.
Once I have the account started it lets me transfer in funds and it
takes the price from that day and assumes it all went to a purchase.
I then edit for the actual price (if required) and the commission (if
any) and it's done. Why can't it do that the first time with a zero
balance? What's so hard about that concept? I shouldn't have to have
a mysterious "sharesin" to start, and then delete it.
OK, so technically it's not a bug (unintended action) but rather a
design flaw. A rather stupid one at that.
Pardon my rant...
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap