|
Posted by lanman on January 4, 2008, 9:27 am
Please log in for more thread options
>John Pollard wrote:
>> lanman wrote:
>>
>>> Nevertheless, I set the date on the report back to 12/30 when
>>> I
>>> originally reconciled, and it didn't work. The numbers and
>>> items
>>> changed and apparently included transactions entered after the
>>> 12/30
>>> reconciliation.
>>
>>> Is there a way to get a report which mirrors the one done on
>>> 12/30?
>>
>> I think not, if you've changed the account register since the
>> reconcile.
>>
>> If you have the report include all transactions, it's going to
>> include transactions not reconciled ... even the report run as
>> part of the reconcile process does that. If you have added
>> transactions to the account since you reconciled, they're going
>> to appear in the reconciliation report.
>>
>> [I don't use the report, so I have not taken the time to verify
>> in detail, the validity of a recon report for an account that
>> has had transactions added/modified since the reconcile. But a
>> quick glance suggests the report may be "correct", even though
>> not what would have printed at the conclusion of the reconcile.
>> If - a big if - the only difference is in the "uncleared
>> transactions", I don't know why the report wouldn't suffice.]
>>
>> To see the exact same report that would have printed at the
>> conclusion of reconciling, restore a backup, from just following
>> the reconcile, to a temporary folder, and print the recon report
>> from there.
>
>Ah, I see what you mean John - the OP did say "mirror the one done on
>12/30,". But, what I mean (and what I think he might mean but I could be
>misunderstanding his true intent) is to verify that his Quicken account
>reconciles as to the 12/30 bank statement.
That's all I was trying to do - have the report match the bank
statement. Thanks for your help, I'll know better next time.
It is true, as you say, he may
>have transactions added since the original 12/30. But that should not
>negate the intent of his balancing to the 12/30 statement, unless he ALSO
>wishes to see 'uncleared' transactions exactly as they might have been at
>that point too, right? And since he did say he's using H&B, that might be
>what he needs for auditing purposes. Not sure.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+
newsgroups
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap